Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Some astounding photos  (Read 18651 times)

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2016, 08:30:32 pm »

You can make a good Internet forum argument too, but I have not yet changed my mind on the issue.

Not trying to change your mind. I'm primarily pointing out the inconsistency of forming beliefs that you are willing to defend by belittling those who do not share them.

Quote
When scientific consensus supports your position I'll be more likely to take it seriously.

Well, first, I don't think you know what my position is. So that's going to be a problem.

Quote
Without that consensus is might as well be anti-vac, flat-earth, faked moon landing, or whatever.


Well, that is perfectly illogical, but perfectly fine for you to think so. But, it lumps you right in there with the folks you are belittling.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2016, 09:16:32 pm »

Straw man.

How so? Having faith in things you don't understand and can't prove is a problem in either direction.

Quote
No researcher claims to have rock solid knowledge

Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt you can say for certain. But that is certainly not the headline. It is difficult to separate the results from the conclusions.

Quote
and no one said so here.

Well that isn't true. Unless you're willing to parse the difference between "facts" and "rock solid" evidence.

Quote
The research is on-going of course, but a picture seems to be emerging, and is being fine-tuned all the time, that humans are having an impact by creating a rapid rise in CO2 that cannot be mitigated against by changes in the biosphere

Okay. In any of this discussion I'm willing to concede that the best science says we are in a warming trend. Of course, this is still being debated WITHIN the climatology community. But fine, let's say it is true. It remains far harder to prove that human activity is contributing. But let's concede that too. Nothing wrong with that, evidence certainly exists. And still, we're a long way from confirming that we are the primary cause. That becomes a stretch and in reality we're not that close to nailing that down. Still, for the sake of conversation we'll concede that too. So, it is getting warmer and human activity over the last 100 years is the primary reason.

Quote
in a reasonable time frame.

This is where it all falls apart of course. This is were the assumptions pile up (and we've had to make plenty already just to get to this point). It falls apart because it assumes that a rise of a degree or two over the last 100 years and another few in the next 100 is somehow bad. From here, all of that science starts to fall apart and becomes conjecture. But what about the melting ice and 10' of water on Broadway? Well, ask 100 climatologists about that. And this is also where 'deniers' have a real foothold and where the ideology begins to trump 'science'. I defy you to find any significant study or even news report that extols the benefits and merits of global warming. There aren't any. And that impugns a scientific community that does not address and refute the ridiculous notion that a change of 2 degrees globally can result in only bad outcomes. It is perfectly absurd, statistically impossible, and scientifically irresponsible to let such a myth persist.

Quote
To that extent, doesn't it make sense to implement policies that seek to avoid the mistakes of the past? Why would you wait, given the decades-long lead times involved in making those changes?

This is yet another problem. So lets concede, again, that it is getting warmer, humans are the cause and even that all possible global outcomes are bad. Which is pretty much where you're at if it makes sense to you to implement policies. If we concede all else, this is the stretch that is a bridge too far. Its like knowing you need to build a bridge without knowing where to put it, how big to build it or if it will get you where you need to go. And THAT science simply does not exist. And that's where it all falls apart and why the people some of you call 'deniers' are perfectly rational and reasonable to question 'policies'. It doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them ideologues. It makes them prudent.

Quote
And the argument that these societal changes cost money are pointless unless you also take into account the cost of not doing them.

Incorrect. Because neither you, nor Al Gore nor any climatologist has the vaguest idea supported by verifiable science how much the cost of not doing them OR how effective doing them will be. And all of this still hinges on the belief that on balance the harms of global warming will outweigh the benefits and to date it is not clear that ANYONE has asked this question. And failing to ask it is a glaring failure of the scientific community so many are willing to put their blind faith in.

For the record, I believe there is a moral imperative to use our resources in a wise and sustainable fashion to protect the planet we have been given. So, again, I'm all for exploring all the options and making wise decisions. I also firmly believe that most of the people who tend to lump people like me in the derogatory stereotype of "denier" are rushing to build and expensive bridge to nowhere.

In the end, all I would like to see is for rational intelligent people who embrace the science and implications of current climate change theory to stop belittling rational intelligent people who question the science and implications of same by using labels  that are usually inaccurate and serve only to fortify their belief structure. Belittling others is no way to shore up a belief.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 09:24:16 pm by N80 »
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2016, 10:57:26 am »

Thanks, George. I thought about simply doing a +1, but that doesn't do justice to your post. Instead, I'll say "bravo!" As soon as one gets away from emotion and begins dealing with the facts, the climate change "arguments" begin to look silly. There may be danger in climate change, but it's hard to believe that even at its most extreme the danger is anywhere near the danger of a nuclear war or an asteroid strike. Life simply is dangerous. For those who think it's too dangerous, as the M.A.S.H. theme song used to point out, "Suicide is Painless." The other advantage of suicide is that it's a way to stop polluting the planet with your dangerous emanations.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3900
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2016, 11:24:02 am »

As soon as one gets away from emotion and begins dealing with the facts, the climate change "arguments" begin to look silly.

I agree 100%.
If only we could agree on what the facts actually are. No point in belaboring this discussion any further.
Logged
-MattB

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2016, 11:56:37 am »

Russ, I personally don't see suicide as an option for me and fortunately I have never been put in a situation where I have had to consider it. I am blessed.

But yes, the conversation needs to be informed and civil. Sometimes we run into flat-earthers and sometimes we run into militant environmentalists. But the truth is, as someone else mentioned, those are usually straw men that we set up to make ourselves seem smart and to prop up our belief structures. I suspect we are all guilty. And the less straw men we set up, the less we offend. The less we offend, the more civil the conversation becomes.

The funny thing is, that many here would label me a climate change denier. Its funny not because I don't think I fit that stereotype but because on many environmental issues I'm probably more 'progressive' than they are.  (I hate the way the word 'progressive' is used these days. It is such an empty euphemism. It gives no indication towards what one is 'progressing'.)
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2016, 04:28:15 pm »

I'm with you, George. I'm certainly not a climate change denier. The climate changes. It keeps changing. How do people think Leif Erickson made it to this continent? And we certainly know about the Little Ice Age" which came after the Medieval Warm Period. But when it comes to the political questions associated with what once was called "global warming" and, when that didn't pan out, now is called "climate change," I'm definitely a denier.

Oh, and I've never considered suicide either. I'll just have to go on polluting the atmosphere.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2016, 07:35:00 pm »

You are welcome to disagree but like I said I'm going to side with the experts using a process that has answered countless questions over hundreds of years better than another method. If a better scientific method comes along and it can be proven superior to what we have I'm sure the scientific community will adopt it.

To many of us who do agree with the overwhelming consensus among experts, the deniers are either just demonstrating their lack of scientific literacy or they are being delusional. No amount of nay saying without some scientific consensus will change that. Probably similar to how "scientific mumbo jumbo" isn't going to change the minds of the truly dedicated denier.

MattB,
You've highlighted the problem quite well. Probably about 85% of the populations of most countries are science illiterate and are therefore unable to question for themselves the credibility of many of the claims of the climate change alarmists.

Of course, there are many different disciplines in science, about 20 to 30 of which are involved in the broad subject of climatology, so when I use the term 'science illiterate' I'm not referring to a lack of detailed knowledge in a particular discipline of science, but a general lack of understanding of the fundamental processes of scientific investigation which involve repeated experiments under controlled conditions, observing the results within reasonably short periods of time, when any specific change in a variable is made.

Through such processes, we begin with a hypothesis that an increase in atmospheric CO2 might have a devastating effect on the planet's climate, for example. We then try to create models which simulate the conditions of the earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces, in order to gain some degree of certainty about the effects of rising CO2 levels, and also delve into conditions in the past in search of any warm periods that appear to be associated with increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, whatever the sources of such CO2 emissions, volcanic or otherwise.

Unfortunately, the general subject is so complicated with so many variables, and so many feedbacks both positive and negative, and so many elements of chaos which cannot be quantified, and so much doubt about the accuracy of measurements relating to the distant past, and so many flaws in computer models which are unavoidably based upon selective and incomplete data, there can be no certainty about the effects on climate of the relatively small quantities of rising CO2 levels, which are currently around 400 parts per million, or 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The modern marvels of science and technology, such as airplanes, rockets, DSLR cameras, 8k OLED TVs, antibiotics and various life-saving drugs, have been developed through repeated experiments in the laboratory where the result of a particular procedure can be observed within a short period of time. As a consequence, a high degree of certainty about the outcomes can be determined.

However, the nature of climate change does not lend itself to such rigorous procedures. We simply cannot create an accurate model of our planet and atmosphere in a laboratory. Also, the time scales involved for meaningful trends to be observed are too great. In such situations there can be no certainty.

Those who have at least a basic appreciation of the scientific method and have read perhaps a few books on the philosophy and history of science and its processes of verification and falsification, should understand this.

Merry Christmas! 


Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2016, 10:28:01 pm »

I think that Ray has some important points to make about the nature of the scientific method.

It is absolutely correct that no means exist to reproduce the state of the atmosphere and its effect on our weather in the way that is required to do controlled experiments.
All we have are observational data.
Collection of direct weather data (particularly in terms of predicting long-term changes to weather and climate) is only a very recent phenomenon.
It is true that a lot of interesting work has ben done to try and look back much further to correlate indirect data from soil and ice samples, mud from the ocean floor etc to known weather phenomena of recorded history (a few thousand years at best) with some interesting results.
However, all the data so far is circumstantial.
The issue of CO2 and its effect on our climate is a case in point.
There is a definite correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and and a change noted in our global climate over about the last century.
However correlation does not equal causation.
A lot more work needs to be done to prove that one observation might actually be the cause of another.

CO2 in the bigger scheme of things is actually a very weak greenhouse gas.
A lot of gases, methane is an example, are much stronger greenhouse gases.
Interestingly enough, in Australia, it has been proposed that we should get rid of all the cattle on continent and that we should farm kangaroos instead for meat.
The argument is that billions of farting cows are contributing to global warming because of the amount of methane these cows are collectively excreting.
However this bovine contribution to global warming is well and truly put in the shade by volcanic activity.
A single significant volcanic eruption extrudes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not just methane and CO2) than 10 years of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Each year we see multiple large volcanic eruptions!

Now, in fact, I am not necessarily against limiting the use of fossil fuels and trying to limit the production of man-made greenhouse gases. The reason is that all the activities related to the whole process are damaging the global environment in very significant ways irrespective of the effect that may occur to the climate.
The point is that in multiple diverse ways humankind is collectively destroying our environment much faster than any change in climate might.

There is no doubt that the global climate has changed (even since I have been alive!)
However, as far as causation goes, as far as I am concerned the cause is not certain.
When I was in school and university classical scientific thought at the time was that things like climate and geology, if they do change at all, only do so very slowly and incrementally.
Current data is challenging that belief profoundly.
Again, the data is also circumstantial, but rather compelling, that climate and geology are actually pretty static - until they change!
So, change, when it occurs, may be pretty dynamic and dramatic rather than slow, incremental, and imperceptible.

Whether CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gas is responsible for what we call climate change is still debatable.
Our climate has been warming and cooling since our planet has had an atmosphere capable of creating a climate and weather that is roughly equivalent to what we experience.
The truth is that we do not understand all the inputs that either maintain or change our climate.
There are lots of tantalising, and interesting, theories that explain more short-lived climate phenomena rather well but when applied to longer-term climate determination become much less certain (to the point of chance).
Even applying those factors that are known to play a role combined into the best weather and climate models running on the most powerful computer systems operational today still struggle to determine whether a particular location will get rain tomorrow, never mind next week!
The reason is simply that those models are still way too simplistic to model reality and the granularity of the data applied is still way too coarse not mention incomplete.

I have no doubt that rapid advances will be made. Computing power will allow more complex models, fundamental research will uncover more and more of the essential, but still unknown, drivers of our climate and weather, and the granularity of the data available will improve progressively.

In summary, I would say that there are many agendas across the world that are being pushed by what I call scientism. It is an unwarranted, religious-type, belief in the infallibility of science always to be correct and always to do the "right" thing.
Having been around the types who do the science all my adult working life I can only say that the degree of intrigue and politics that goes on makes traditional politics seem boring. Dispassionate, objective types they are not!
This is not all bad. Passion is as important in science as in any other endeavour. However, the same human foibles so evident in other disciplines, professions, and job descriptions are just as prevalent in scientific circles as any other. So mistakes are made, agendas are pushed that reek of palace politics (or worse) rather than rational thought. The "right" answer may be more a function of what is politically acceptable than the actual evidence. All of us can think of scientists who have been publicly humiliated and disgraced by their colleagues, not because they were wrong - but because they were right - it was just not accepted because it challenged the politics and dogma of the day (howsoever defined). This problem is not limited to the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, believe me, it is very prevalent today in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The scientism of today feeds into this appalling phenomenon because the relatively uniformed public feed into the debate on a political level rather than at the level where it needs to be - the actual data and the process by which it was obtained since this is the only way to actually gauge the significance of any conclusions being drawn. How many "climate dissenters" in the scientific community are allowed a voice right now? Does the actual data they are basing their conclusions on even get a look in? The labels "climate dissenter" or "climate change denier" are very much political ones designed to humiliate and destroy credibility. So, instead of the debate being a scientific one it becomes a matter of popular politics.

So, my suggestion is that while the issue of climate change deserves our attention we all need to be much more discerning in who and what we believe. At the level of what the general public has access to there are very few unbiased sources of information out there.
To use an analogy familiar to us photographers: the level of noise is not a good indicator of the strength of the signal!

Merry Christmas!

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 04:19:26 am by Tony Jay »
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #48 on: December 25, 2016, 09:41:21 am »

The reason is that all the activities related to the whole process are damaging the global environment in very significant ways irrespective of the effect that may occur to the climate.
The point is that in multiple diverse ways humankind is collectively destroying our environment much faster than any change in climate might.

Well even this is up for debate. You use the word "damage" and "destroy". Now certainly those can be fairly objective words but in this context they are not. Some could say building a city and its urban sprawl are a beautiful process in which humans, by virtue of evolution and their DNA, are very effectively guaranteeing the propagation of their species. And this is undeniable despite what has to be destroyed to build such cities and structures and despite how bad things look sometimes in the inner city. It would be just as fair to say, thank goodness we got rid of those ugly trees, horrible streams and pesky rare species in order to build water treatment facilities, hospitals and grocery stores.

We generally don't look at a bird's nest and say eeew, look at all that destruction of the environment. Likewise a termite colony on a plain in Africa or a wetland created by beavers....at the cost of hundreds of mature trees and the habitat they created.

If we are just another evolved species, then we aren't "destroying" or "damaging" anything. We are surviving. And the numbers suggest we are doing a great job at it.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #49 on: December 25, 2016, 10:01:47 am »

Or to put it another way, the only consistent and unchangi9ng thing in the history of the planet is change.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #50 on: December 25, 2016, 07:05:59 pm »

Well even this is up for debate. You use the word "damage" and "destroy". Now certainly those can be fairly objective words but in this context they are not. Some could say building a city and its urban sprawl are a beautiful process in which humans, by virtue of evolution and their DNA, are very effectively guaranteeing the propagation of their species. And this is undeniable despite what has to be destroyed to build such cities and structures and despite how bad things look sometimes in the inner city. It would be just as fair to say, thank goodness we got rid of those ugly trees, horrible streams and pesky rare species in order to build water treatment facilities, hospitals and grocery stores.


I think lots of people would disagree with that view. However, there always tends to be a new balance that takes place in nature, after some destructive or damaging event takes place, whether that event is the introduction of a new species into a territory, a volcanic eruption or earthquake, or a massive meteorite hitting the planet.

There have been many mass extinctions of life in the past due to catastrophic but natural events. Perhaps we owe our existence, as the Homo Sapiens species, to such a catastrophic event that caused the extinction of predators such as the dinosaurs, allowing small, furry creatures to evolve into ape-like creatures which later evolved into Homo Sapiens who more recently evolved into the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

We have now reached the stage, since the industrial revolution, of unwittingly releasing lots of toxic fumes as a byproduct of our need for energy. Fortunately, some of us have the nous to distinguish between the noxious fumes and the beneficial fumes. The unhealthy toxic fumes that are emitted in countries such as China and India, causing significant health problems, are largely due to those countries cutting the cost of their energy supplies, by failing to introduce existing and effective methods of emission controls, in order to give themselves an economic advantage allowing their own 'industrial revolution' to take place more quickly.

Since there is always a degree of economic competition throughout the world which sometimes encourages individuals, companies and countries to cut corners in order to get an economic edge,( the recent example of Volkswagen cheating on its emission controls being a case in point), I'm quite comfortable with a move towards clean and renewable energy, particularly solar power which has tremendous potential as the cost of PVPs comes down and the efficiency goes up.

A future in which most house roofs are covered with PVPs and most vehicles are electric, is worthwhile to strive towards. At the same time, I see no good reason why energy supplies from fossil fuels should not be available in circumstances where they are more economical, taking all external costs into consideration, such as the costs of effective emission controls and the costs of damaging good agricultural land through fracking or coal mining.

However, it doesn't seem rational to ban the burning of fossil fuels purely on the grounds that such a process results in emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and is of great benefit for the greening of the planet and increased crop production.  ;)
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2016, 09:48:38 pm »

I think lots of people would disagree with that view.

Of course. There is no shortage of disagreement these days. But, on what grounds? Either there is a moral imperative to protect this planet, the lifeforms in it and each other....or there is not. If there is no moral imperative then any opinion is as good as the next regarding what we do with this place. If we humans are just a smarter monkey then there is no 'ought to' or 'ought not' and the only thing we can appeal to is some level of pragmatism that suggests we are somehow going to make it hard on our offspring if we keep driving gasoline powered cars and burning coal. And again, the current trend in populations and growth centers suggest that even that sort of pragmatism is misplaced. The species is thriving better since the Industrial Revolution than ever before. The use of fossil fuels has been our single greatest evolutionary adaptation. The environmentalists simply lament that everyone is just too stupid to understand or that they do not see the threat because it is decades if not centuries away.

I believe we do have a moral imperative. I believe it is wrong to misuse what we have been given. I believe we ought to use what we have wisely. I do not believe that we are simply a higher life form. And on what grounds would we assume that we were? We have been nowhere near as successful as the common bacterium if we measure success based on evolutionary efficiency, which, without a moral imperative is ALL THERE IS.  I believe there is more and that there is a right and wrong way to use this planet. But without some moral imperative, all the other oughts and shoulds are just opinions. We are rationally free to reject them and replace them with whatever we might like to believe.

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate

Merry Christmas
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

muntanela

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 687
    • BRATA
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #52 on: December 26, 2016, 05:57:30 am »

N80, your opinions and arguments seem to be in some way similar to those of the ancient sophist Protagoras. But your rather obscure "moral imperative" seems to be much more irrational than his pragmatic "Good of the city".
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2016, 09:18:07 am »

N80, your opinions and arguments seem to be in some way similar to those of the ancient sophist Protagoras. But your rather obscure "moral imperative" seems to be much more irrational than his pragmatic "Good of the city".

I'm not familiar with the Protagoras or the sophists. The moral imperative I referred to could not have been more specific if you noticed, and understood, the last two lines of my reply. But, I also did not name it out right because there is no need. Either there is one or there is not. As to its rationality, well, rationality often has to be argued. I'm ready. Are you? (Yes, I know, why bother, its exhausting.)

And if Protagoras posited a pragmatic "Good of the city" that is exactly the sort of pragmatism that certain environmentalists and climate change ideologues cling to (and to which I referred specifically above). It is not in any way a moral imperative as the "Good of the city" can be interpreted in as many was as Democrats and Republicans, communists and capitalists, monarchists and populists have in the past. And it is far less rational than a moral imperative since it remains purely subjective and relative. Further, in terms of the effects of global climate change it can barely lay claim to being pragmatic. The reason being that global climate change will have vastly different effects depending on the locale and that in order to be pragmatic a plan of attack has to be able to promise some sort of tangible, practical effectiveness. Nothing in the current response to global warming can claim that. It is a one size fits all, single faceted panacea with no real scientific support.  So clearly, the sophistry lies on the side of the climate change ideologues.

A moral imperative is nearly the opposite of pragmatism. Pragmatism says "do this" and you will benefit from this result. If the result can be called into question, and it always can, then the "do this" has no power. A moral imperative says "do this". Period. The ends do not require justification and are not up for debate. Humans are, I believe, naturally repulsed by such imperatives. But if you want me to get behind "saving the planet" then don't attempt to justify it to me by telling me I need to save the snail darter or to clean up the air in Beijing or even make things nice for my great great grandchildren. I can decide that I don't care about those things and worry only about myself and what is good for me....which, ironically, is very pragmatic from an evolutionary standpoint.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2016, 09:52:27 am »

It strikes me that "save the planet" arguments always seem to ignore the "scientific fact" that even if we were to do all the things they tell us we must do and were to stop doing all the things they tell us we must not do the effect on the planet would be almost unnoticeable. Makes clear that the effort to save the planet from toxic human emanations (and farting cows) is an exercise in politics -- not morality and not science.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2016, 08:22:47 am »

No matter how many scientists will say that humans have influenced the climate in a negative way there will always be some that disagree and I totally agree that all scientists have their own agendas as well.

Anyway regardless of agreeing or not there are other very good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels. And the very good news is that we have just passed the point where many countries see renewable energy as on par or cheaper than fossil fuels for energy production even without subsidies. That also means without carbon tax which ought to be applied to fossil fuel burning. 2017 will be a turning point for EV adoption in many countries. Transport is just a small part of all fossil fuel burning. Bruning of forests is as big a problem too. Lot's of problems, but there is a lot of work in progress on improvements. So this should make us all happy even for those who don't agree on global warming. Especially getting clean air in our cities should be a high priority. Self driving electric cars will within the next 10 years reduce the pollution and fatalities a lot. So be happy  :)

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2016, 08:29:00 am »

I'm not sure where you are getting your news. I wish half of it were true. The truth is that China is building coal burning power plants at an astonishing rate. I heard one per week but cannot confirm that figure. The point is, the nations that matter, which are China, India and Russia are doing their own thing while western nations wring their hands and impose taxes on themselves for using the most readily available energy forms. The vilification of fossil fuels is a propaganda myth even if they are making the planet warmer. And even if everyone in Holland is riding in a self driving EV with electricity provided by windmills, the effect of that on the planet will be immeasurably................small.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2016, 08:47:58 am »

I'm not sure where you are getting your news. I wish half of it were true. The truth is that China is building coal burning power plants at an astonishing rate. I heard one per week but cannot confirm that figure. The point is, the nations that matter, which are China, India and Russia are doing their own thing while western nations wring their hands and impose taxes on themselves for using the most readily available energy forms. The vilification of fossil fuels is a propaganda myth even if they are making the planet warmer. And even if everyone in Holland is riding in a self driving EV with electricity provided by windmills, the effect of that on the planet will be immeasurably................small.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that we are at a turning point so that it no longer makes sense to burn fossil fuels. At a turning point not evertthing will change, but it will as we move forward. It will change due to to economics and because of beliefs. That's what I find very positive. The consequences of this will be huge and will change everything over the next decades. Self driving cars will be the norm in every country and starting with the most forward looking countries like Norway, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark as well as a number of states un the US. China will move very fast in this area also is my expectation. Initially relatively small but after some years it will grow exponentially large.

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4386
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2016, 09:50:11 am »

To set fire to something in general is the most primitive form of use.
If it is wood or oil or whatever. It is time we move on to a more intelligent use of our fossil earth.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Some astounding photos
« Reply #59 on: December 27, 2016, 09:56:41 am »

China will move very fast in this area also is my expectation.

I admire your optimism. But the truth is, from your standpoint China is moving backwards as fast as it can. Like I said, China is building NEW coal fired plants at a rapid rate. How is that progressing away from fossil fuel?
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up