/sci/ - Science & Math

if that was all...
explain the destruction of the ecosystem around windmills?
explain how to build "durably" solar power cells that are made from highly rare and expensive shit.

Can you explain how we'll burn fossil fuels once we've run out of them?

>100 years later
>30 degrees higher
>everything dying
>unable to grow food
>people dying
>earth dying

Fossil Fuels: 2
Green Shit: 1
Earth/People: 0

>>5312119
>let's rely on our future by something that will run out

>>5312134
>30 degrees higher
do you still really believe this shit is our fault?

>>5312145
>>5312130


>implying the human race has to live forever in a high-tech society

sorry guys, this shit is temporary, after the disaster hits we'll be forced back to our "green roots" and our population will be cut down to 1-2 billion; until then anything goes!

>>5312158
>do you still really believe this shit is our fault?

>30degrees higher

its actually going to be 2.5-4 degrees Celcius higher in the next 100-150 years.

Yes it is due to us. Read the Stern Report and read the latest studies funded by Koch Oil company, even they are admitting it's due to us

>>5312132
how do windmills effect ecosystems negatively ?

Wait, how did you get 2 points? Was there an earlier trumping or was this trumping just so good it earned 2 points?

>>5312185
His father's on the committee that determines which sides get points in global debates.

It's nepotism, sure, but at least we have a system.

>>5312181
when they're planted in the ocean, they destroy everything in the seabed

Here's an answer from an actual environmentalist:

No sane environmentalist (hurp) would argue that mass freight and air travel could be powered by solar or wind power.

That said, if we lowered gasoline consumption on passenger automobiles by 30% globally, the oil savings from that alone would allow you to power cargo container ships and air travel practically indefinitely, the vast majority of gasoline is not used to move those things, they're used to move passenger vehicles.

And no, lowering oil consumption doesn't mean we have to lower the standard of safety for cars, or the standard of living that the cars provide. It simply means they provide the same service, for cheaper. Not only is this possible, American automakers already did this in the late 70s and early 80s, in response to OPEC trying to style on the American economy. The resulting automotive efficiency gains broke OPEC's ability to price oil for a decade. Effectively, Americans could stop using oil faster than OPEC could stop selling Americans oil.

>>5312168
I don't want to read biased studies.
If there exists peer reviewed studies, as few as there might be (around 30 if I'm not wrong) that negate anthropo climate change, then I deduce logically that it does not exist.

>>5312208

Stern isn't biased it's peer reviewed. He was also a climate skeptic in the past.

The Oil industries are biased in the wrong way, for them to admit we have anthro based climate change is astonishing and against their interests.

Go educate yourself

>>5312181

what are windmills made of, how are they made?

plastics, oil, etc

>>5312208
I have yet to read a single peer-reviewed study that negates it. There have been studies that focus on other aspects that could cause it; however, most of them admit that this does not disprove anthropological causes. Furthermore, there are some studies that show global warming is not the cause of certain things, such as a list of particular islands sinking. At best, these scientists say there is a lot to be skeptical about due to the fact that our climate is driven by a plethora of circumstances and conditions.

However, on a whole, the scientific consensus is that we are by large responsible for the current climate change.

>Humans responsible for less then 2% of co2 emission
>Taking greentards seriously
>post 2000

>>5312219

People will mind a lot more than nature will as far as global warming is concerned.

>>5312145
>implying we cant just make more petroleum.

>>5312202
>if we
dictator detected, let the free market fix it. 7 billion humans and you want to make them "all" do something? That is going to require a lot of bullets.

Yes, Murka needs to cut back on its consumption because it is no longer an exporter, the US military machine alone easts about 6 million barrels equivelent a day. Why no mention this enviroman?

>>5312228

Actually, I'm already vindicated in seeing businesses starting to come around to efficiency as a massive moneymaker. Dow Chemical, the Empire State Building retrofit, Wal-Mart, and Target, are all mandating more efficient trucking fleets for their logistics chains.

And the US military is already acknowledging its massive oil consumption because it costs them military personnel. Regardless of why they're doing it, the USAF are pursuing a more environmentally friendly solution than hauling fuel trucks from Point A to Point B. Liquid metal batteries, combat-deployable solar paneling, and the DOE just mandated a target 500% increase in battery capacity and a 500% decrease in battery cost.

Your attempts to draw me in emotionally are inadequate.

>>5312119
well we can start by adding futuristic cylinder sails to our cargo ships.. that alone will save us 20-30 percent in fuel costs for minimal costs. Also there is a lot of real estate i wonder how much solar energy could be collected at sea form the boat and reflection off the water. To run electrical systems of the ship, or even power a electric auxiliary motor

>>5312228
>let the free market fix it
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>5312228
>let the free market fix it

what evidence is there that free-markets exist

what evidence is there that free-markets can fix anything

please cite your source of a free market, where it occurred and in what period of time--researchers are still unable to find this mythical "free market"

We can use nuclear reactors on the freight cargo ships and the 747s.

>>5312328

Let's not use nuclear reactors on the things that fly. That strikes me as asking for trouble.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.h
tml

Efficiency is a cherry on top, we need a reliable and powerful clean energy source, there is no way around that. The answer is nucular, but retarded pseudo-environmentalists cannot have that. So in the end, it will be environmentalists that will be to a large degree responsible for global warming. Their opposition to nuclear has more than undone all the emmision reduction renewables have achieved.