David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[alanschu]

 

 

What's your source on this?, doesn't sound right, you are talking about hydraulic fracturing? Actually gas prices are quite low right now, mostly because of fracking

 

Re: Oil sands.

 

The province I live in his heavily financed by oilsands development.  When the price of oil goes down, development and extraction (especially new development) goes down because it's cheaper to do so (and it lowers supply to help bring the price back up again).  I have several friends that have worked in the industry up at Fort McMurray where most of Alberta's oil sands development is.

[TrashMan]

 

Companies plaster products with any number of green awards and certificates but the bloody things need to be replaced within a few years.  An example I know well is washing machines, they used to last 10-15 years without serious problems, now you're lucky to get five years and then it ends up in a junkyard...not very green is it?

 

That's company greed at work.

 

They figured out they'll sell more if it doesn't last long so it has to be replaced.

I have a black-and-white portable TV that's at least 40 years old, and I must have dropped it a few times. Still works like a charm.

 

The new stuff isn't made to last. Deliberately.

 

[Walsingham]

 

 

Companies plaster products with any number of green awards and certificates but the bloody things need to be replaced within a few years.  An example I know well is washing machines, they used to last 10-15 years without serious problems, now you're lucky to get five years and then it ends up in a junkyard...not very green is it?

 

That's company greed at work.

 

They figured out they'll sell more if it doesn't last long so it has to be replaced.

I have a black-and-white portable TV that's at least 40 years old, and I must have dropped it a few times. Still works like a charm.

 

The new stuff isn't made to last. Deliberately.

 

 

 

And here was me thinking it might be entropy....

[HoonDing]

It's cold and rainy. Global warming my ***.

[Walsingham]

It's cold and rainy. Global warming my ***.

 

BREAK BREAK!

 

Brace for people flying off the handle!

[pmp10]

There are vast, almost unlimited amounts of shale oil and gas all over the world. 

Just as reserves of crude oil.

That doesn't mean that most of them are accessible given current technology. 

Or that they are concentrated enough to make extraction profitable.

[JFSOCC]

 

Peak oil is not discredited. the US reached Peak oil in 1971.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png

It's just that because nations and companies tend to keep their record keeping opaque that we don't exactly know what can still be economically extracted. Shale gas is a stopgap measure, it will give a small spike of production for a short while, and at great expense to the environment, and after that, you're facing the same problems. It's much wiser to invest in renewables now.

You don't seem to understand what shale oil and gas mean. Shale is the source rock for oil. Before we could only get oil that seeped out of shale over millions of years and then got trapped in some other structure. Now we can actually go to the source and get it directly from there. There are vast, almost unlimited amounts of shale oil and gas all over the world. That is why the outdated curve you linked turned in the other direction, and US is now expected to be energy independent in just a few years, something I never thought would happen.

 

As far as nuclear power I'm for it too, but unfortunately I just read an article I can't find anymore that says that nuclear energy is just way too expensive compared to the cheap natural gas, so the prospects for it are once again grim. Whatever happened to all those modular designs that were supposed to revolutionize it?

 

As far as population growth, industrialized countries actually have a problem with shrinking population, not overpopulation. If anything Westerners should have more children, not fewer. More generally, you simply can not project in a straight line like that professor was doing. There are technological breakthroughs and cultural paradigm shifts which completely change the equations every few decades.

 

I read this and heaved a big sigh.

 

Alright, let's do this one by one, shall we?

1. Bull****. unlimited fuels would have crashed the oil prices, and yet they're higher than ever.

2. That slight uptick at the end of the curve is well within expectations, like the finding of a new well, but it won't stop the trend. If you'd watched the video (which I noticed yesterday I've posted twice in this thread) you'd have actually accounted for it

3. US energy independent in a few years? HAHAHAHA, so I guess those expensive wars in resource rich countries were for the actual reasons stated, right, bringing democracy (ignoring the many other oil-less dictatorships around the world)and findign weapons of mass destruction.

Energy companies always promise the moon, otherwise they'd never get permission to drill in nature reserves and the like. Don't believe everything you hear.

4. Nuclear power is expensive, compared to gas, it's also much less polluting, even so, it's hardly the best solution.

5. Yes, western countries have population decline, the important exception is the United States, with it's nuclear family values, anti-abortion protests and religious nutcases has a birthrate which only with the economic crisis has fallen below it's shocking highs.

But since we have about 3 times the population in the world that we did in the 50's of the last century, and because the world is not just the western world, your point is moot. Although it does say something against strict immigration policies, does it not!?

6. Technological breakthroughs can't be relied on, and can't be predicted. the Technologists as I like to call them, want to solve world hunger with bio-tech, bypassing that if we don't solve the underlying problem of growth, that it will just increase the amount of stress the world will get. The Green revolution was fantastic, but it also helped increase the world population exponentially.

[Walsingham]

JFSOCC, your rejoinders make you sound like an angry tw**. Unless there's something wrong with my monitor.

[JFSOCC]

I suppose I'm more passionate about this subject than anything else, because it's near and dear to me.

It's also one of the few subjects I claim to know something about beyond mere opinion.

 

We've discussed things before and I generally enjoy your posts even though it's mostly humour with a barb.

But on this topic, you won't see me stay quiet. Ever.

[TrashMan]

Amen Brother.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Quantum Theory is unproven, or else it would be referred to as Quantum Law. It is impossible to prove it, the same applies with evolution. However, both have such evidence behind them that they are accepted as fact by the scientific community.

 

 

Incorrect.  Law's are not anymore proven than theories (they are usually equivalent, excepting that theories usually try to attempt to describe causal relationships, whereas Laws are just summaries of repeated observations).

 

Newton's Laws are actually less accurate than the Theory of Relativity.  They just work well enough for most of our cases, that we can ignore relativistic elements of motion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 

 

In summary, however, Laws are as accurate as theories, in that they continue to be relevant until they are proven incorrect.  Which is what science is most interest in (trying to prove things wrong, since it's easier to do so).

 

Another, perhaps more readable explanation can be found here (which further summarizes that science community does not consider anything to be truly "provable."): http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

I concede I was wrong to use "Law".

 

However, my argument that quantum theory is unproven is still true.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Peak oil is not discredited. the US reached Peak oil in 1971.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.pngIt's just that because nations and companies tend to keep their record keeping opaque that we don't exactly know what can still be economically extracted. Shale gas is a stopgap measure, it will give a small spike of production for a short while, and at great expense to the environment, and after that, you're facing the same problems. It's much wiser to invest in renewables now.

You don't seem to understand what shale oil and gas mean. Shale is the source rock for oil. Before we could only get oil that seeped out of shale over millions of years and then got trapped in some other structure. Now we can actually go to the source and get it directly from there. There are vast, almost unlimited amounts of shale oil and gas all over the world. That is why the outdated curve you linked turned in the other direction, and US is now expected to be energy independent in just a few years, something I never thought would happen.As far as nuclear power I'm for it too, but unfortunately I just read an article I can't find anymore that says that nuclear energy is just way too expensive compared to the cheap natural gas, so the prospects for it are once again grim. Whatever happened to all those modular designs that were supposed to revolutionize it?As far as population growth, industrialized countries actually have a problem with shrinking population, not overpopulation. If anything Westerners should have more children, not fewer. More generally, you simply can not project in a straight line like that professor was doing. There are technological breakthroughs and cultural paradigm shifts which completely change the equations every few decades.

I read this and heaved a big sigh.Alright, let's do this one by one, shall we?1. Bull****. unlimited fuels would have crashed the oil prices, and yet they're higher than ever.2. That slight uptick at the end of the curve is well within expectations, like the finding of a new well, but it won't stop the trend. If you'd watched the video (which I noticed yesterday I've posted twice in this thread) you'd have actually accounted for it3. US energy independent in a few years? HAHAHAHA, so I guess those expensive wars in resource rich countries were for the actual reasons stated, right, bringing democracy (ignoring the many other oil-less dictatorships around the world)and findign weapons of mass destruction.Energy companies always promise the moon, otherwise they'd never get permission to drill in nature reserves and the like. Don't believe everything you hear.4. Nuclear power is expensive, compared to gas, it's also much less polluting, even so, it's hardly the best solution.5. Yes, western countries have population decline, the important exception is the United States, with it's nuclear family values, anti-abortion protests and religious nutcases has a birthrate which only with the economic crisis has fallen below it's shocking highs.But since we have about 3 times the population in the world that we did in the 50's of the last century, and because the world is not just the western world, your point is moot. Although it does say something against strict immigration policies, does it not!?6. Technological breakthroughs can't be relied on, and can't be predicted. the Technologists as I like to call them, want to solve world hunger with bio-tech, bypassing that if we don't solve the underlying problem of growth, that it will just increase the amount of stress the world will get. The Green revolution was fantastic, but it also helped increase the world population exponentially.

To be fair, the high birth rate in the US is highly concentrated in low income families, immigrants, and Mormons.

 

I do agree with your points however, and lower birth rates would be much better for the environment, the financial situation of families, and the economy.

[Meshugger]

25 degrees outside, it's summertime!

[alanschu]

 

 

However, my argument that quantum theory is unproven is still true.

 

What exactly are you referring to when you say "quantum theory?"  Do you mean quantum mechanics?  Quantum field theory?

[TrashMan]

Well, as someone who has studied quantum theory at college, let me just say that it's...iffy.

 

It's rather "weak" as the only "proof" is a wonky experiment that I simply don't get how is suposed to prove anything.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Lower birth rates result in a psychologically unhealthy passive and selfish society, dominated by an ever growing population of old people. It shrinks the work force so you have to import foreign workers.

 

Lower birth rates will be the death of WASP USA, EU, Russia and the Balkans.

[TrashMan]

And higher birth rates will be the death of the world.

 

 

Birth rates have to be normalized.

[Rostere]

I take "quantum theory" to mean the entirety of atomic and sub- atomic physics and chemistry (from the literal meaning of quantum). Most likely he's referring to quantum mechanics, though. It's pointless to say it's not proven, even if you mean it in a logical-philosophical sense. It's similar to saying that there are undetectable ghosts behind the moon, or that the universe is ruled by your imaginary friend. No one might be able to prove you wrong, but it's impossible to prove to anyone else and it's not a worldview that will help you in any way. Quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, has practically perfect predictive power to the extent of what our experiments can tell us. Of course you can interpret QM in several ways, but how it works remains the same, and it's really not up to opinion.

 

Generalizing the whole of QM as one theory is absolutely awful. Then saying that it's "unproven" (more than any other theory...) is just misleading.

 

How do you think transistors are made? Almost all modern technological devices utilize QM in some way. The physicists at Intel or whoever designed your computer parts would be ashamed to read your statement. No matter of your opinion, people use QM at all times of the day to make new advances.

[Gfted1]

U.S. Approves Natural-Gas Export Plan.

[alanschu]

Well, as someone who has studied quantum theory at college, let me just say that it's...iffy.

 

It's rather "weak" as the only "proof" is a wonky experiment that I simply don't get how is suposed to prove anything.

 

What exactly are you referring to when you say "Quantum Theory"

 

Quantum theory includes things like electromagnetic radiation, and using spectra to determine the composition of things like stars and whatnot.  Are you suggesting that stuff like this is "iffy," or is there something else that you're referring to?

The term "quantum theory" is a bit nebulous and encompasses a lot of things.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What exactly are you referring to when you say "quantum theory?"  Do you mean quantum mechanics?  Quantum field theory?

Quantum Mechanics.

 

I take "quantum theory" to mean the entirety of atomic and sub- atomic physics and chemistry (from the literal meaning of quantum). Most likely he's referring to quantum mechanics, though. It's pointless to say it's not proven, even if you mean it in a logical-philosophical sense. It's similar to saying that there are undetectable ghosts behind the moon, or that the universe is ruled by your imaginary friend. No one might be able to prove you wrong, but it's impossible to prove to anyone else and it's not a worldview that will help you in any way. Quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, has practically perfect predictive power to the extent of what our experiments can tell us. Of course you can interpret QM in several ways, but how it works remains the same, and it's really not up to opinion.

 

Generalizing the whole of QM as one theory is absolutely awful. Then saying that it's "unproven" (more than any other theory...) is just misleading.

 

How do you think transistors are made? Almost all modern technological devices utilize QM in some way. The physicists at Intel or whoever designed your computer parts would be ashamed to read your statement. No matter of your opinion, people use QM at all times of the day to make new advances.

Dude, I was pointing out that it was just as unproven as climate change to make the argument that while climate change is not explicitly proven, it has been functionally proven.

 

I'm not claiming that quantum mechanics aren't valid or anything.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I read this and heaved a big sigh.

 

Alright, let's do this one by one, shall we?

1. Bull****. unlimited fuels would have crashed the oil prices, and yet they're higher than ever.

Unlimited supply doesn't mean it's cheap and easy to get to.

2. That slight uptick at the end of the curve is well within expectations, like the finding of a new well, but it won't stop the trend. If you'd watched the video (which I noticed yesterday I've posted twice in this thread) you'd have actually accounted for it

3. US energy independent in a few years? HAHAHAHA, so I guess those expensive wars in resource rich countries were for the actual reasons stated, right, bringing democracy (ignoring the many other oil-less dictatorships around the world)and findign weapons of mass destruction.

Energy companies always promise the moon, otherwise they'd never get permission to drill in nature reserves and the like. Don't believe everything you hear.

Ok, you're right, IEA and every other energy agency in the world is wrong.

 

5. Yes, western countries have population decline, the important exception is the United States, with it's nuclear family values, anti-abortion protests and religious nutcases has a birthrate which only with the economic crisis has fallen below it's shocking highs.

But since we have about 3 times the population in the world that we did in the 50's of the last century, and because the world is not just the western world, your point is moot. Although it does say something against strict immigration policies, does it not!?

A lot of US population growth is due to immigration, and is expected to become even more so in the near future. As the undeveloped countries develop, their birth rates also drop dramatically. In fact I recently read that in the countries supplying the bulk of immigrants to the US the birth rate is becoming similar to the US.

6. Technological breakthroughs can't be relied on, and can't be predicted. the Technologists as I like to call them, want to solve world hunger with bio-tech, bypassing that if we don't solve the underlying problem of growth, that it will just increase the amount of stress the world will get. The Green revolution was fantastic, but it also helped increase the world population exponentially.

Well, the poverty rate in the world has dropped dramatically, far more than was predicted by UN agencies and such.

 

 

Dude, I was pointing out that it was just as unproven as climate change to make the argument that while climate change is not explicitly proven, it has been functionally proven.

 

I'm not claiming that quantum mechanics aren't valid or anything.

Except that unlike QM, GW hasn't actually predicted anything and is constantly being retconned to try to make it agree with observations. The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of garbage in, garbage out computer models.

[alanschu]

I guess where I find myself tripping up is this idea of being "explicitly proven."

 

Science doesn't "prove" anything.  At best you disprove theories and hypotheses, but there's nothing stopping us from having a better understanding in the future that shows that, say, relativity is actually wrong.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

 

 

It's semantics at this point, so I'll stop, but I am mostly sharing this because if I am tripping up on what you're trying to say, it's possible others may be for the same reason.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I guess where I find myself tripping up is this idea of being "explicitly proven."

 

Science doesn't "prove" anything.  At best you disprove theories and hypotheses, but there's nothing stopping us from having a better understanding in the future that shows that, say, relativity is actually wrong.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

 

 

It's semantics at this point, so I'll stop, but I am mostly sharing this because if I am tripping up on what you're trying to say, it's possible others may be for the same reason.

 

I will put this as clearly as I can.

 

1. Most deniers like to point out that climate change(or evolution) is just a theory and is not proven to be true.

 

2. I stated something to the effect of "quantum mechanics are just as unproven as climate change", to show that something that is not explicitly proven is commonly accepted as fact, because it has the vast majority of scientific consensus behind it.

 

I'm not claiming that science explicitly proves anything or that quantum mechanics are not true because they have not been proven.

 

Except that unlike QM, GW hasn't actually predicted anything and is constantly being retconned to try to make it agree with observations. The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of garbage in, garbage out computer models.

Yeah, it isn't like scientists have predicted the polar ice caps melting, thinning of the ozone layer, or increasingly erratic weather patterns. They've obviously been faking it for the past 20 years to force Americans into evil socialist habits like recycling and energy conservation.

 

Maybe if we pretend poverty isn't a problem it will go away too.

Edited May 18, 2013 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

I take "quantum theory" to mean the entirety of atomic and sub- atomic physics and chemistry (from the literal meaning of quantum). Most likely he's referring to quantum mechanics, though. It's pointless to say it's not proven, even if you mean it in a logical-philosophical sense. It's similar to saying that there are undetectable ghosts behind the moon, or that the universe is ruled by your imaginary friend. No one might be able to prove you wrong, but it's impossible to prove to anyone else and it's not a worldview that will help you in any way. Quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, has practically perfect predictive power to the extent of what our experiments can tell us. Of course you can interpret QM in several ways, but how it works remains the same, and it's really not up to opinion.

 

Generalizing the whole of QM as one theory is absolutely awful. Then saying that it's "unproven" (more than any other theory...) is just misleading.

 

How do you think transistors are made? Almost all modern technological devices utilize QM in some way. The physicists at Intel or whoever designed your computer parts would be ashamed to read your statement. No matter of your opinion, people use QM at all times of the day to make new advances.

 

Erm...no. Transistors don't use the so-called quantum state.

Actually no computer does. Quantum computers are theoretical.