• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

July was "absolutely" Earth's hottest month ever recorded

The overwhelming majority of scientists do not necessarily agree with the GW hypothesis. You people people have been championing that (97% or overwhelming) statement since 2009, and it's not true.

Many, or most scientists do not actually know enough about it to make a well reasoned decision, or opinion.

They do; you just have been told to deny it.
 
And this 'transition off fossil fuels' would take how long, roughly? I wont ask what you think would replace fossil fuels because I am sure you have no answer. The truth is, if the climate is warming because of human activity, then there is nothing you can do about it.

All modes of renewables could be used to power the US. Geothermal, wave, tidal, wind, solar - hell I think the best option would be to build a SBSN. It is completely feasible to transition the home owner to be self sufficient energy wise. We could use oil then to power other things, or for manufacturing. It increases the livelihood of that resource, assuming that resource doesn't have an ill effect on the planet which I don't believe, but I don't know. So if the question is still out there, then we still burn oil and coal, albeit the sun would be powering the grid. For sure, it can power residential homes.

But it makes sense that the transition will be made once financially it makes sense. Once it costs too much energy to harvest x amount of energy, then the market will change and go to renewables. Already there are concept electrical cars being made by Audi I believe in response to Tesla. Tesla has successfully built basically a home battery. It stores electricity from whatever method you want to use, and can obviously power a home. So I suppose the market will shift once the numbers don't add up.
 
All modes of renewables could be used to power the US. Geothermal, wave, tidal, wind, solar - hell I think the best option would be to build a SBSN. It is completely feasible to transition the home owner to be self sufficient energy wise. We could use oil then to power other things, or for manufacturing. It increases the livelihood of that resource, assuming that resource doesn't have an ill effect on the planet which I don't believe, but I don't know. So if the question is still out there, then we still burn oil and coal, albeit the sun would be powering the grid. For sure, it can power residential homes.

But it makes sense that the transition will be made once financially it makes sense. Once it costs too much energy to harvest x amount of energy, then the market will change and go to renewables. Already there are concept electrical cars being made by Audi I believe in response to Tesla. Tesla has successfully built basically a home battery. It stores electricity from whatever method you want to use, and can obviously power a home. So I suppose the market will shift once the numbers don't add up.

That's all wonderful, but global warming alarmists say we have to act now or we are all doomed. And I get as a solution is decades long transition fantasies. Like I said, if its happening, there is no way to stop it.
 
That's all wonderful, but global warming alarmists say we have to act now or we are all doomed. And I get as a solution is decades long transition fantasies. Like I said, if its happening, there is no way to stop it.

What's frustrating with that statement is that we could of done something about it but we chose not to do it because of something we create on a spreadsheet.
 
I can attest to that. It was so hot where I hail from last July that I frequently contemplated suicide.

As for denialism of climate change, there's no point in attempting to rationally persuade the naysayers. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe in climate change, and there's a wealth of information and research to back them up. Yet the nonbelievers remain unpersuaded, which isn't surprising when the reason behind their warped denialism is right-wing propaganda that spreads ignorance on the subject at the behest of corporations and manufactures that would rather continue making that extra buck than bear with regulations aimed at mitigating global warming.

Nobody sane denies that the climate changes. You know this I expect. Thus you will be lying like the rest of the alarmist followers of the doomsady cult.

Do you deny that the use of food for fuel is killing at least 200,000 people per year?
 
The big difference between most people on this subject isn't whether or not the earth's heat rises (or falls) - but whether or not humans are the cause of it and, further, that humans can alter how we live and change things.

Not even that.

The big question is it it a problem?

The answer is; no. Not even a slightly compared to the cost of traffic lights which are not a big cost to society....
 
What's frustrating with that statement is that we could of done something about it but we chose not to do it because of something we create on a spreadsheet.
Or the counter-statement could be that any issues with CO2, would be resolved on their own, based on energy requirements,
but we choose to waste a lot of money because of something we created on a spread sheet.
 
It is very true that thanks to fossil fuels we have the lifestyle that we have today. But it isn't like if we were to transition off of them, the standard of living would diminish. We have the know how and capacity to even improve our standard of living with renewables. It isn't that we are throwing dog **** at fossil fuels, and taking away everything that it has done for us - it is just we don't want to pollute. We have to transition anyways at some point, right? So while we have the power now, we should invest power into making a renewable grid. It would actually cost less if we did it now than later. And we would still have fossil fuels to burn, but this time they wouldn't be used to power our homes. It could be used to power our military alone. It would increase the amount of resources for our military.

The point I want to convey, why should we continue to use fossil fuels based upon what it has done for us? It should be about what makes sense. And free energy from the sun makes a lot more sense.

No, we do not have to transition away from fossil fuels for centuries. Solar technology is nowhere near ready to assume even a significant portion of the fossil fuel energy load.
 
No, we do not have to transition away from fossil fuels for centuries. Solar technology is nowhere near ready to assume even a significant portion of the fossil fuel energy load.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: The solar company that can only supply three hours of power for 75,000 homes that we read about recently is a good start, but most people want 24 hours of electricity available to them - and IIRC, that was a billion dollar investment! :shock:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: The solar company that can only supply three hours of power for 75,000 homes that we read about recently is a good start, but most people want 24 hours of electricity available to them - and IIRC, that was a billion dollar investment! :shock:

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

It's like comparing a lightning bug to lightning.:mrgreen:
 
Why not? We have the technology and efficiencies to do this. But we choose not to. Is it the fear of change?

The population of the world is about 7+ billion people.

Before the use of fossil fuels to grow and distribute foods, that population was about 1 billion people.

Are you proposing that we allow 6+ billion people to starve?
 
The population of the world is about 7+ billion people.

Before the use of fossil fuels to grow and distribute foods, that population was about 1 billion people.

Are you proposing that we allow 6+ billion people to starve?

Does our planet have enough resources to sustain 7 billion people and counting?
 
The population of the world is about 7+ billion people.

Before the use of fossil fuels to grow and distribute foods, that population was about 1 billion people.

Are you proposing that we allow 6+ billion people to starve?

What makes you think renewables couldn't sustain 7 billion people?
 
Back
Top Bottom