If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   An additional billion people farting carbon into the atmosphere will not help with Global Warming, though if we could get them all to do it at once it would be pretty hilarious   (cnn.com) divider line 48
    More: Obvious, global warming, degree Celsius, American Electric Power, tailpipes, heating and cooling, Nathan Myhrvold, smokestacks, degree Fahrenheit  
•       •       •

663 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Oct 2013 at 12:45 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-16 11:19:32 AM
www.clipartpal.com
 
2013-10-16 12:57:16 PM
The funny thing is, they'll probably be the billion people contributing about 5% of what the richest 500,000 release.
 
2013-10-16 12:58:13 PM
Isn't that the plot of a Futurama episode?
 
2013-10-16 12:58:31 PM
www.futurama-madhouse.net
 
2013-10-16 12:59:05 PM

AngryDragon: [www.futurama-madhouse.net image 320x240]


Came for this, leaving bloated and uncomfortable.
 
2013-10-16 01:05:52 PM

flucto: [www.clipartpal.com image 230x350]


You owe me a new laptop! Great job.  Now I have to go clean all the coffee off my laptop, desk, walls...
 
2013-10-16 01:06:25 PM
Last night I ripped a loud long stinky one. IT chased my roomate out of the room. Dunno if I should be proud or grossed out.
 
2013-10-16 01:09:21 PM
So I should stop?  Even outside..................or in bed?
 
2013-10-16 01:22:49 PM
An additional billion people is bad for a large number of reasons, energy consumption being one of them.  Steps to head that off:

1) Push for worldwide rights and education of women.  Women who have the freedom and knowledge to choose a career generally opt to have fewer children, and they have them later in life.
2) Make birth control available cheaply (or free), safely, and without stigma.  (Hi, new Pope!  Got any announcements you'd like to make?)
3) Reduce infant/child mortality.  It sounds counterintuitive, but as that falls, families choose to have fewer children, because their goal is to get to a couple children who can support them when they're elderly.  This is where global health initiatives pay for themselves.

Presently, the "replacement rate" is about 2.3 children per woman.  That's the point where you have a stable population-- more boys than girls are born, not every child reaches age of reproduction, not every woman is fertile, etc.  Most industrialized nations are already below this-- it's the developing world where the real work needs to be done.
 
2013-10-16 01:23:28 PM
Oh hell noes; advocating population control?  You know who else wanted to control populations???  Margaret Sanger would be so happy!
 
2013-10-16 01:32:31 PM

Swampmaster: Oh hell noes; advocating population control?


Which of the three proven mechanisms outlined above is most offensive to you?

The existence of China doesn't mean People's Glorious One Child Festival is the only way to drive down fertility rates.
 
2013-10-16 02:20:57 PM
Everyone is for population control so long as its not THEIR reproductive that are lost.
 
2013-10-16 02:31:56 PM
if everyone did it at the same time, pointing in the same direction, we could spin this planet like a pinwheel.
 
2013-10-16 02:57:27 PM
Vuvuzella trifecta in play!
 
2013-10-16 03:20:27 PM
I volunteer to remove several thousand people if I can be given clemency or some sort of a waiver.  I'll start with my list, and move on to other's lists. . . Chances are we may have some of the same people.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:01 PM
So, its come to this...

I expected greenies would play the population control card eventually.
The real fun starts when they dictate who's allowed to breed, who's banned, and how much tax you'll have to pay for the privilege of being told about your planet destroying ways.

/First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.
/but I'm guessing that's not what environmentalists have in mind.
 
2013-10-16 03:49:15 PM

colon_pow: if everyone did it at the same time, pointing in the same direction, we could spin this planet like a pinwheel.


I already had the feeling it is what makes the world turn.
 
2013-10-16 03:51:32 PM
Isn't that the plot of a Futurama episode?


i thought South Park did it??
 
2013-10-16 04:01:52 PM
I'd like to take this opportunity to post Ory's Creole Trombone.

\maybe some day I'll have the muscle control to nail that intro...
 
2013-10-16 04:27:21 PM

way south: The real fun starts when they dictate who's allowed to breed, who's banned, and how much tax you'll have to pay for the privilege of being told about your planet destroying ways.


Can you point to any scientist advocating this?  Or is this just math policy you imagine to make yourself feel better?
 
2013-10-16 05:28:03 PM

chimp_ninja: An additional billion people is bad for a large number of reasons, energy consumption being one of them.  Steps to head that off:

1) Push for worldwide rights and education of women.  Women who have the freedom and knowledge to choose a career generally opt to have fewer children, and they have them later in life.
2) Make birth control available cheaply (or free), safely, and without stigma.  (Hi, new Pope!  Got any announcements you'd like to make?)
3) Reduce infant/child mortality.  It sounds counterintuitive, but as that falls, families choose to have fewer children, because their goal is to get to a couple children who can support them when they're elderly.  This is where global health initiatives pay for themselves.

Presently, the "replacement rate" is about 2.3 children per woman.  That's the point where you have a stable population-- more boys than girls are born, not every child reaches age of reproduction, not every woman is fertile, etc.  Most industrialized nations are already below this-- it's the developing world where the real work needs to be done.


Whatever!  You know what, I'd really like to pork that Indra chick, because I think that would help broads worldwide.
 
2013-10-16 05:54:55 PM

chimp_ninja: way south: The real fun starts when they dictate who's allowed to breed, who's banned, and how much tax you'll have to pay for the privilege of being told about your planet destroying ways.

Can you point to any scientist advocating this?  Or is this just math policy you imagine to make yourself feel better?


Obama science adviser John Holdren:

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
 
2013-10-16 05:56:22 PM

chimp_ninja: way south: The real fun starts when they dictate who's allowed to breed, who's banned, and how much tax you'll have to pay for the privilege of being told about your planet destroying ways.

Can you point to any scientist advocating this?  Or is this just math policy you imagine to make yourself feel better?


I can point to several.
Its also been a popular theme in fiction, and its the natural direction of the conversation when TFA brings it up.

People assume that simply handing out contraceptives is going to work when many cultures have drawn a line against the practice or can't afford it.
The next step is to ignore them and walk away?

/and taxes, don't forget we need more taxes.
 
2013-10-16 08:01:33 PM
I say let war, pestilence and famine do their job
 
2013-10-16 08:31:58 PM
I thought farting was carbon neutral because it's not freeing fossil fuels, just recycling what didn't get buried and such.

If I were not here, the carbon I release via biological necessity(and boy, do I!), would still get released when the potential food.... plants and animals die and decompose.


That's always what the alarmists put forth on the subject when it's brought up. Only now, it's a valid worry.

chimp_ninja: way south: The real fun starts when they dictate who's allowed to breed, who's banned, and how much tax you'll have to pay for the privilege of being told about your planet destroying ways.

Can you point to any scientist advocating this?  Or is this just math policy you imagine to make yourself feel better?


Simply following your logic to a conclusion. If CO2 is the debil, we've got to stop producing it. That comes at a cost, the only way to mitigate our use of it will cause people to starve. New York to Zimbabwe.

You do know that food doesn't magically transport itself, right? You also know that semi trucks and planes and ocean freighters don't function too well on "clean" energy alternatives.

The people who lose out there or the people who lose out because some food sources die off. 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

I'm a red meat kind of man, so I'll be all right either way living in central US.

It all boils down to overpopulation. The same as the occasional water shortage you hear about. There is no such thing, there are only thousands(or millions) of idiots who settled down and live in a region that doesn't support their needs and have become reliant on getting it via un-natural means.

I'm fine with letting that continue. We'll adapt when we need to. That's kind of how evolution works, societal and biological. Trying to accomplish change by means of wishful thinking, or worse, gloom and doom...

It's funny in that respect. The hippies have become classic conservatives(gloom and doom, sacrifice, punishment, legislation of beliefs and morals, etc), and the conservatives have become big fans of liberty(why should we stop?) when it comes to the topic of global warming.

That's the real reason I never get tired of GW threads, the sweet irony. People on either end may not see it, but playing the middle as I do, it brings me much entertainment.
 
2013-10-16 08:35:45 PM

Prophet of Loss: Everyone is for population control so long as its not THEIR reproductive that are lost.


I'm for (reasonable) population controls. I don't want children.

Your argument is invalid.
 
2013-10-16 08:37:00 PM

way south: /First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.


This is an also acceptable alternative, assuming it includes properly informing about birth control and making it more available.
 
2013-10-16 09:45:13 PM

omeganuepsilon: People on either end may not see it, but playing the middle as I do


Technically speaking, being halfway between "woefully ignorant" and "willfully ignorant" doesn't put you in the "middle".

omeganuepsilon: If CO2 is the debil, we've got to stop producing it. That comes at a cost, the only way to mitigate our use of it will cause people to starve. New York to Zimbabwe.


I forgot how when Germany moved to 10+% energy generation from wind over the past few years, and became the world's leading installer of PV, they collapsed as a nation and Sarah Palin was automatically Kaiser.

I forgot how when France started making 75%+ of their electricity from nuclear power that they turned into Thunderdome.

I forgot how all energy technologies are constrained by physics to always remain at their 1990 prices.

omeganuepsilon: I'm fine with letting that continue. We'll adapt when we need to. That's kind of how evolution works, societal and biological.


Except that if you read any of the major economic reviews on the topic (the Stern Review comes to mind), adaptation is significantly more expensive than mitigation.  It turns out that waiting until agricultural markets crumble and then "I don't know, think of something", is a bad insurance plan.

But hey, you have Luddite guesswork you pulled out of your ass, so don't let anyone say you've got nothing.
 
2013-10-16 09:51:15 PM

pdee: In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:


Wait.  All you have is fantasy interpretations of a book written 35 years ago about what would happen if there was a massive country-wide infrastructure failure due to over population?

Also, please tell us more about which of your fantasies you imagine will come true first.  Will Obama sterilize the nation with a massive attack on the water supply?  That sounds like a reasonable thing that reasonable people believe in.
 
2013-10-16 09:57:34 PM

omeganuepsilon: I thought farting was carbon neutral because it's not freeing fossil fuels, just recycling what didn't get buried and such.  If I were not here, the carbon I release via biological necessity(and boy, do I!), would still get released when the potential food.... plants and animals die and decompose.  That's always what the alarmists put forth on the subject when it's brought up. Only now, it's a valid worry.


I guess you didn't notice that people farting occurs nowhere in the linked article, and just believed the headline.  There seems to be a trend here of you imagining problems and then claiming other people are scared of them.
 
2013-10-16 10:30:05 PM
Just wondering, but what is the maximum audible range on a fart? I understand that the whole world ripping a solid one at the same time would be hilarious, but where would one have to be to hear the best anal choir?
 
2013-10-16 10:46:54 PM

way south: /First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.



Sort of.  The problem with that idea is that providing a first world lifestyle to a person generally also means multiplying their carbon output (per capita) by 100 or more (first world lifestyle doesn't come for zero cost).  If their population growth is halved, while outputting 100 times more carbon, well....hmmmm.

The average impoverished African nation has a per capita output of about .1 ton per year.  The U.S. is 18.  180 to 1.  But we don't even have to use the power hungry U.S. as an example, say we just want to compare with the average European nation 90 to 1.  Or an emerging first world economy like China, where most people still live quite modestly (50 to 1).

So that new lifestyle they get would have to be compensated by a 98% decrease in population growth just to break even in carbon.
 
2013-10-16 11:03:38 PM

grumpfuff: Prophet of Loss: Everyone is for population control so long as its not THEIR reproductive that are lost.

I'm for (reasonable) population controls. I don't want children.

Your argument is invalid.


There is always some asshole who needs to chime ...

Newsflash: to most people, reproductive right are important.
 
2013-10-16 11:15:51 PM

Prophet of Loss: grumpfuff: Prophet of Loss: Everyone is for population control so long as its not THEIR reproductive that are lost.

I'm for (reasonable) population controls. I don't want children.

Your argument is invalid.

There is always some asshole who needs to chime ...

Newsflash: to most people, reproductive right are important.


Perhaps you shouldn't make broad generalizations then. And, fwiw, I know several people who are in favor (reasonable) population controls, all of whom also want children.
 
2013-10-16 11:57:59 PM

grumpfuff: way south: /First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.

This is an also acceptable alternative, assuming it includes properly informing about birth control and making it more available.




Under normal circumstances they'll inform themselves.
Its more expensive to raise a first world child. Women can't avoid joining the workforce and start thinking about their careers. A better educated populace leans about things like family planning, and it prefers fewer children raised to a higher standard.

/yes its a drain on our resources, but a better educated populace Is more likely to regulate its waste and consumption than a squalid, ignorant, mass.
/case in point: we are talking about how to deal with overpopulation where the average third world citizen doesn't care.
/its true the average African uses very little carbon, but he gets it by cutting down all of the trees in walking distance.
 
2013-10-17 12:07:47 AM

way south: grumpfuff: way south: /First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.

This is an also acceptable alternative, assuming it includes properly informing about birth control and making it more available.

Under normal circumstances they'll inform themselves.
Its more expensive to raise a first world child. Women can't avoid joining the workforce and start thinking about their careers. A better educated populace leans about things like family planning, and it prefers fewer children raised to a higher standard.


I don't know about "inform themselves." If we had proper sex ed classes in schools, I'd be more willing to consider the point, but atm we have idiots who think abstinence-only education is the only acceptable stance, and, even worse, that it works.


/yes its a drain on our resources, but a better educated populace Is more likely to regulate its waste and consumption than a squalid, ignorant, mass.

I will never argue against a better educated populace. If It were up to me, college or trade school would be required for everyone, and free. And before you ask, no I don't know how to fund it.

/case in point: we are talking about how to deal with overpopulation where the average third world citizen doesn't care.

Which needs to change, but with groups like the Vatican refusing to teach people about things like condoms(cheap and effective), there's little we can do.

/its true the average African uses very little carbon, but he gets it by cutting down all of the trees in walking distance.

Depends on the part of  Africa. For example, there's a big honkin desert there.
 
2013-10-17 03:35:34 AM

grumpfuff: way south: grumpfuff: way south: /First world societies trend towards small families, third world prefers large ones.
/Elevate wages and the standard of living, the problem goes away.

This is an also acceptable alternative, assuming it includes properly informing about birth control and making it more available.

Under normal circumstances they'll inform themselves.
Its more expensive to raise a first world child. Women can't avoid joining the workforce and start thinking about their careers. A better educated populace leans about things like family planning, and it prefers fewer children raised to a higher standard.

I don't know about "inform themselves." If we had proper sex ed classes in schools, I'd be more willing to consider the point, but atm we have idiots who think abstinence-only education is the only acceptable stance, and, even worse, that it works.


/yes its a drain on our resources, but a better educated populace Is more likely to regulate its waste and consumption than a squalid, ignorant, mass.

I will never argue against a better educated populace. If It were up to me, college or trade school would be required for everyone, and free. And before you ask, no I don't know how to fund it.

/case in point: we are talking about how to deal with overpopulation where the average third world citizen doesn't care.

Which needs to change, but with groups like the Vatican refusing to teach people about things like condoms(cheap and effective), there's little we can do.

/its true the average African uses very little carbon, but he gets it by cutting down all of the trees in walking distance.

Depends on the part of  Africa. For example, there's a big honkin desert there.




The way I see it, the mechanics are self enforcing on this problem.
Yes a politician can block educational options, but unless they are paying for the costs of child rearing the the family budget still rules. First world birth rates are still lower.
The same reason is why we can educate the hell out of someone and they'll still do bad things to their environment, as we see with china. Here we've taken the zealots stance and made for no lack of book learning, but there just isn't any money in caring about the environment. So they don't bother.
It's not like they can afford to bother anyway.

Raise the standards of living and people not only learn to care, but they've got the means to care. Politicians can say what they want, but they can't prevent good business from being done where the rules allow for it.

Leave people as poor subsistence farmers and they won't be doing anything to make their homes less of a wasteland.
 
2013-10-17 05:28:15 AM
Oh, well. Did my part on Tuesday, snip snip, no crotchfruit.
 
2013-10-17 05:39:57 AM

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: I thought farting was carbon neutral because it's not freeing fossil fuels, just recycling what didn't get buried and such.  If I were not here, the carbon I release via biological necessity(and boy, do I!), would still get released when the potential food.... plants and animals die and decompose.  That's always what the alarmists put forth on the subject when it's brought up. Only now, it's a valid worry.

I guess you didn't notice that people farting occurs nowhere in the linked article, and just believed the headline.  There seems to be a trend here of you imagining problems and then claiming other people are scared of them.


No, I read the Fark headline.  Since we're on Fark.com, it's relevant.

The rest of your post was cherry picking and making irrelevant points.

Try responding to:

omeganuepsilon: Simply following your logic to a conclusion. If CO2 is the debil, we've got to stop producing it. That comes at a cost, the only way to mitigate our use of it will cause people to starve. New York to Zimbabwe.

You do know that food doesn't magically transport itself, right? You also know that semi trucks and planes and ocean freighters don't function too well on "clean" energy alternatives.


Operate homes on all the clean energy you want, you're not going to eradicate consumption of fossil fuels without people paying the price.

chimp_ninja: It turns out that waiting until agricultural markets crumble and then "I don't know, think of something", is a bad insurance plan.


Insurance for what?  Economics?  WTF sparky.

I'm not talking about efficiency, I'm talking about a virtual requirement.
Like eggs in omelettes. The cost will be a cost.  Either we give up on breeding, or we get callous to some people's problems/deaths, or we come up with magic as a means to solve all of our CO2 problems.  Hint:  option C is not possible.

No one said overpopulation as a cause is wrong, because it's not(which is part of the article as well as the Fark headline).  Sure, suggesting doing something about it is a little anti-social if not psychotic, but it is part of the problem.

Mitigate all you want, but don't force it on everyone. The problem with only shifting our practices a little bit is that it only buys us time.  And not that much because of other places on the globe(that are way more overpopulated) that are far outpacing our CO2 emissions.

I'd rather not flunk my senior year in high school just so that I can keep playing high school football.  The world will move on whether I, or you, want it to.  And I do.  That is my opinion.

But whatever, back to your fire and brimstone sermon trying to sway people from their evil ways.  We'll see how well that pans out.
 
2013-10-17 06:52:40 AM

grumpfuff: Prophet of Loss: grumpfuff: Prophet of Loss: Everyone is for population control so long as its not THEIR reproductive that are lost.

I'm for (reasonable) population controls. I don't want children.

Your argument is invalid.

There is always some asshole who needs to chime ...

Newsflash: to most people, reproductive right are important.

Perhaps you shouldn't make broad generalizations then. And, fwiw, I know several people who are in favor (reasonable) population controls, all of whom also want children.


So you knew my point was valid, but had to be "that guy".

Got it.
 
2013-10-17 07:03:14 AM
The most dangerous and plentiful of all greenhouse gasses is dihydrogen-monoxide.  We should regulate that and cap and trade that shiat.
 
2013-10-17 11:40:22 AM

omeganuepsilon: Operate homes on all the clean energy you want, you're not going to eradicate consumption of fossil fuels without people paying the price.


Petroleum use will plummet as full-electric and hybrid technologies continue to grow in the light vehicle market.  We could accelerate that considerably with tougher CAFE standards and government support, but Congress is stupid and short-sighted.

Amazingly, Russia managed to convert the Trans-Siberian Railroad to electric.  Japan and Europe have extensive electric freight and passenger rail systems.  We could knock out 6% of our petroleum usage by converting existing lines to electric rail, but most of the major projects have been killed at the Congressional level.  It's cheaper to run once you've converted it, to boot-- you'd be a fool to build new rail lines using anything else.  (Spoiler alert: We're still being fools.)

Air travel/freight (~2% of global emissions) is the largest piece with a major technical hurdle.  However, biofuels were approved for commercial aircraft in 2011, and (non-food-derived) biofuels have even worked in F/A-18 and A-10 flights with no degradation of performance.  Hell, Alaska Airlines figured out that they can substitute 20% of their fuel with used cooking oil, and they converted 75 of their flights to that mix.  Large-scale adoption of biofuels is a tough problem, but solvable on a reasonable timeframe to address climate change, if we had sufficient political willpower.

It's not that we can't do it, it's that Luddites like you won't support it.  I'm sure OPEC sends you a holiday card for your efforts in rolling up in a ball and moaning that change is hard.

omeganuepsilon: No one said overpopulation as a cause is wrong, because it's not(which is part of the article as well as the Fark headline). Sure, suggesting doing something about it is a little anti-social if not psychotic, but it is part of the problem.


Yeah.  It's incredibly "anti-social" and "psychotic" to talk about methods for controlling population growth like scientists have been:

chimp_ninja: 1) Push for worldwide rights and education of women. Women who have the freedom and knowledge to choose a career generally opt to have fewer children, and they have them later in life.
2) Make birth control available cheaply (or free), safely, and without stigma. (Hi, new Pope! Got any announcements you'd like to make?)
3) Reduce infant/child mortality. It sounds counterintuitive, but as that falls, families choose to have fewer children, because their goal is to get to a couple children who can support them when they're elderly. This is where global health initiatives pay for themselves.


But hey, keep pushing your fantasy that Fartbama is going to death panel all white toddlers or whatever.
 
2013-10-17 11:51:20 AM

omeganuepsilon: Operate homes on all the clean energy you want, you're not going to eradicate consumption of fossil fuels without people paying the price.


And as an aside, the consensus position is not "We will never produce another molecule of carbon dioxide".  That's a strawman you constructed.  Most scientists are pushing for an 80% reduction in the medium term (~50 years), which would roughly stabilize atmospheric levels once achieved.

That gives you flexibility on some of the tougher nuts to crack, such as air travel (~2%).  Getting the grid and passenger vehicles carbon-neutral, better forest management, and redesigining some key industrial processes (cement production, etc.) is likely sufficient to get past the 80% line.

it would be worth the investment just to give the finger to OPEC, let alone the public health benefits of cleaner air and water.  The technical solutions are most of the way there-- there are few 'hard walls' left standing.  We're crippled almost exclusively by willpower.
 
2013-10-17 05:58:45 PM

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: Operate homes on all the clean energy you want, you're not going to eradicate consumption of fossil fuels without people paying the price.

And as an aside, the consensus position is not "We will never produce another molecule of carbon dioxide".  That's a strawman you constructed.  Most scientists are pushing for an 80% reduction in the medium term (~50 years), which would roughly stabilize atmospheric levels once achieved.


You really don't read too well, or is the game cherry picking, or you replying to the argument you want to exist, not what I've been typing, whichever, I already addressed the point:

omeganuepsilon: Mitigate all you want, but don't force it on everyone. The problem with only shifting our practices a little bit is that it only buys us time.  And not that much because of other places on the globe(that are way more overpopulated) that are far outpacing our CO2 emissions.


It was not a straw man, it is a valid point.  With China and India and the like doing as they please, what little the US can do is futile.  By all means, develop the technology, but legislating change that asks for sacrifice from the common man isn't called for.

But lets take a step back:

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: Operate homes on all the clean energy you want, you're not going to eradicate consumption of fossil fuels without people paying the price.

And as an aside, the consensus position is not "We will never produce another molecule of carbon dioxide".  That's a strawman you constructed.  Most scientists are pushing for an 80% reduction in the medium term (~50 years), which would roughly stabilize atmospheric levels once achieved.


Your argument is that I claim "not another molecule"...but openly admit the goal is 80%.  Close enough to eradicate for government work.  It is a taller order than you make it sound.

There is a LOT of money required for the logistics or groundwork for most of it, and the technologies themselves are still expensive and dangerous.(ie exploding electric cars).  Everything but nuke power is essentially in the beta/prototype phase, with scattered results.

I'm all for nuke power, until Fukushima happens.  I'd love it around here in central US, we also have a lot of wind farms, think putting nuclear power in certain places in California is maybe pushing your luck though.

But continue to pretend to intimately know my stance on the fine details.  I'm thinking you're the sort to argue against what you want to see as opposition instead of what's really there.

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: No one said overpopulation as a cause is wrong, because it's not(which is part of the article as well as the Fark headline). Sure, suggesting doing something about it is a little anti-social if not psychotic, but it is part of the problem.

Yeah.  It's incredibly "anti-social" and "psychotic" to talk about methods for controlling population growth like scientists have been:


Did you mean to quote yourself and make it look like you think you're a real scientist?

Anyhow, Population Control(which is what I was talking about) =\= Education(what you are talking about)

Whatever, enjoy the thread snipe, I don't have much time for fark like I used to.
 
2013-10-17 06:47:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Whatever, enjoy the thread snipe, I don't have much time for fark like I used to.


Somewhere, a gym will have an empty seat in 26 minutes.

omeganuepsilon: Did you mean to quote yourself and make it look like you think you're a real scientist?


1) I am.  It's part of why I propose technical solutions when all you have is a pile of "Nuh uh.  Change is haaaaaard."
2) They are not my original ideas, so I'm attributing them to other scientists.
3) Think of it as a reminder that you should argue against things actually said, instead of ridiculous fantasies you invent.

omeganuepsilon: Your argument is that I claim "not another molecule"...but openly admit the goal is 80%. Close enough to eradicate for government work. It is a taller order than you make it sound.


No, not "close enough".  Words have meaning.  Emission reductions have diminishing returns-- we could knock out big chunks by simple policy changes (building codes, CAFE standards, education, insisting that coal plants close at the end of their designed lifetime, etc.), but getting that last 20% is where you run into the big technical hurdles.  It's why 80% is possible with sufficient willpower, but "eradication" is likely impractical in the next century.  Even 90% is many times harder than 80%.
 
2013-10-17 07:13:08 PM

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: Your argument is that I claim "not another molecule"...but openly admit the goal is 80%. Close enough to eradicate for government work. It is a taller order than you make it sound.

No, not "close enough".  Words have meaning.


*cough*

Yes, they do.

You yourself said 80% would "roughly stabilize".  And I said it was "close enough for government work", an idiom with which you are clearly unfamiliar.  You've paraphrased it a few times, but want to be pedantic so that you can "win" on the internet.

You also admit, in a round about manner, that the last 20% would be great, but it's sooooo hard.

Not wrong, just too difficult.

Yeah, I'm the one saying "nuh uh. Change is haaaard".  You're the one who wants to conserve life as we know it for future generations.

I welcome change, stated explicitly that several times in this thread.

A scientist?  Of what, basketweaving?

You're just another hippy with an agenda(and very poor reading and debate skills).

chimp_ninja: omeganuepsilon: Whatever, enjoy the thread snipe, I don't have much time for fark like I used to.

Somewhere, a gym will have an empty seat in 26 minutes.


How clever.  Check my timestamps in this thread:
2013-10-16 08:31:58 PM
<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" comments="" 7977355="" 87084932#c87084932"="" target="_blank">2013-10-17 05:39:57 AM
05:58:45 PM

And this post. 4 total in this thread.

Aside from these last two, that's pretty sizable gaps.  I need to sleep, and I also work.

You're the one bragging about your supposed modeling agency career in science, talking about how people should just exercise save the planet to please you. Sorry I can't spend all my time replying to your regurgitated false interpretations of what I typed 12+ hours ago(sometimes in the successive multiple replies obsessive style)....  If anyone is JFP'ing it up, it's you, Sparky.
 
2013-10-17 08:46:38 PM

omeganuepsilon: You yourself said 80% would "roughly stabilize". And I said it was "close enough for government work", an idiom with which you are clearly unfamiliar. You've paraphrased it a few times, but want to be pedantic so that you can "win" on the internet.


I have no idea what you're even trying to say.  I mean, the words are all English.  They just don't form anything.

omeganuepsilon: If CO2 is the debil, we've got to stop producing it. That comes at a cost, the only way to mitigate our use of it will cause people to starve.


This is was the oversimplified bullshiat you posted.  You got called out on it, and you're flailing.  Go back to sleeping at work.
 
2013-10-17 08:57:56 PM
lol, try hard.

Unlike you I won't lose sleep over this. Have a nice life!
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report