As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

America - Sticking it's fingers in it's ears and ignoring Climate change?

245

Posts

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    He could always give the information about articles that back his point. Author, journal, article title, abstract. A lot of use have access to university databases that can look that kind of thing up.

    By all means imbalanced, give the information of your articles.

    Shinto on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    So I'm done with this thread as I've attempted to bring relevant coverage of a topic, and you guys have basically said those sources are invalid and any sources I could actually give would also be invalid. This is stupid.
    Look, they're taking you to task mostly because you claimed some level of expertise on the topic and haven't really demonstrated much more than a layman's understanding. I mean - it's not bad that you keep up with current science in newspapers and magazines or anything, but it's also not a basis for a claim of expertise.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • RonnieWooWoo!RonnieWooWoo! Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hey don't look at us (the United States) with this global warming bullshit. Anything we do or don't do is pretty much irrelevant as long as China and India keep setting up a new coal-fueled power plant every other fucking day. Some stupid hippy in San Fransisco deciding to drive a Prius is going to have about as much effect as bailing out a sinking rowboat with a teaspoon at this point.

    RonnieWooWoo! on
    Woo!
  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I enjoy watching you guys duke it out - I usually learn a fair bit from threads like this, but insulting each others' references wont get us too far. Why not argue the actual points, and then when there's a dispute - you can compare the size of your... articles. Otherwise its all just who can link the most articles.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    I enjoy watching you guys duke it out - I usually learn a fair bit from threads like this, but insulting each others' references wont get us too far. Why not argue the actual points, and then when there's a dispute - you can compare the size of your... articles. Otherwise its all just who can link the most articles.

    On a scientific topic, it really is all about the articles. You need credible research to back up any point you make. If you don't have it, then there's no reason to listen.

    sanstodo on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Hey don't look at us (the United States) with this global warming bullshit. Anything we do or don't do is pretty much irrelevant as long as China and India keep setting up a new coal-fueled power plant every other fucking day. Some stupid hippy in San Fransisco deciding to drive a Prius is going to have about as much effect as bailing out a sinking rowboat with a teaspoon at this point.

    This is mostly just a viewpoint pushed as an excuse for inaction. Not being the biggest or fastest growing polluter does not make us an insignificant one.

    Shinto on
  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hey don't look at us (the United States) with this global warming bullshit. Anything we do or don't do is pretty much irrelevant as long as China and India keep setting up a new coal-fueled power plant every other fucking day. Some stupid hippy in San Fransisco deciding to drive a Prius is going to have about as much effect as bailing out a sinking rowboat with a teaspoon at this point.

    But India and China will say "why should we? Look at the US..." Its just cyclical. I guess what I'm saying is, I see your point - but I think its a pretty awful reason to do nothing.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    This is mostly just a viewpoint pushed as an excuse for inaction. Not being the biggest or fastest growing polluter does not make us an insignificant one.
    We are the biggest IIRC.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yeah but if you look at GDP/pollution or GDP/use of natural resources, we fucking rock, even compared to countries like Canada.

    Which is ultimately why I think there's a lot of fingers in the ears on this stuff. Right or wrong, a lot of the proposed solutions are perceived by many to just be a call for America to stop being so damn productive.

    I like the guy on TDS who argued that we should pollute and progress as much as possible, because that only hastens the production of the technology that will allow us to survive and combat the effects of pollution and progress. Anyone remember that guy?

    Yar on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hey don't look at us (the United States) with this global warming bullshit. Anything we do or don't do is pretty much irrelevant as long as China and India keep setting up a new coal-fueled power plant every other fucking day. Some stupid hippy in San Fransisco deciding to drive a Prius is going to have about as much effect as bailing out a sinking rowboat with a teaspoon at this point.
    To continue with that comparison: The guy with the teaspoon is just gonna sit there telling the rest that he's not gonna do shit until they find some buckets and get to work. Why don't you gonna do what you can and maybe the rest will do what they can as well.

    Aldo on
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people agree the earth is getting warmer, but there's no consensus on the cause, the relevance of humans, or how significant it is.

    yeah, largely mistaken

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    Oh one last thing. Just to point out the hypocrisies of everybody else, New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal EITHER so at this point NOBODY has given evidence to suggest Global Warming does or does not exist.

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

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah but if you look at GDP/pollution or GDP/use of natural resources, we fucking rock, even compared to countries like Canada.

    Which is ultimately why I think there's a lot of fingers in the ears on this stuff. Right or wrong, a lot of the proposed solutions are perceived by many to just be a call for America to stop being so damn productive.

    Well maybe, but this is largely a consequence of offshoring the great majority of our industrial production and the fact that the bulk of our GDP comes from sources other than actually making tangible things. I'm a little skeptical that our productivity would have to take a strong hit if we ramped up out environmental protections, especially in "smart" ways like encouraging alt. energy, fuel efficiency or public transportation.

    I mean, I get that a lot of Americans see this as a "fairness" thing - why should we enact environmental restrictions when they don't? And some of it is just good old American "I do what I want to do". Neither seems like a great reason to be intransigent about looking for solutions though.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SavedSaved Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah but if you look at GDP/pollution or GDP/use of natural resources, we fucking rock, even compared to countries like Canada.

    Which is ultimately why I think there's a lot of fingers in the ears on this stuff. Right or wrong, a lot of the proposed solutions are perceived by many to just be a call for America to stop being so damn productive.

    I like the guy on TDS who argued that we should pollute and progress as much as possible, because that only hastens the production of the technology that will allow us to survive and combat the effects of pollution and progress. Anyone remember that guy?


    hodgman_ap03_hi.jpg

    John Hodgman?

    I don't think he's a real scientist.

    Saved on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    But he has charts.

    How can you doubt the credibility of his charts?

    Shinto on
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people agree the earth is getting warmer, but there's no consensus on the cause, the relevance of humans, or how significant it is.

    yeah, largely mistaken

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    Oh one last thing. Just to point out the hypocrisies of everybody else, New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal EITHER so at this point NOBODY has given evidence to suggest Global Warming does or does not exist.

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

    Hmm... if only there was a source we could cite that would bring together the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists...

    IPCC CAN YOU DIG IT?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Well maybe, but this is largely a consequence of offshoring the great majority of our industrial production and the fact that the bulk of our GDP comes from sources other than actually making tangible things. I'm a little skeptical that our productivity would have to take a strong hit if we ramped up out environmental protections, especially in "smart" ways like encouraging alt. energy, fuel efficiency or public transportation.

    I mean, I get that a lot of Americans see this as a "fairness" thing - why should we enact environmental restrictions when they don't? And some of it is just good old American "I do what I want to do". Neither seems like a great reason to be intransigent about looking for solutions though.
    Well, it's more than that. First of all, offshored production contributes to GNP but not GDP.

    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.

    There's more to it than that. But unfortunately there is that, too, muddying the inaction waters.

    Yar on
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Proto wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people agree the earth is getting warmer, but there's no consensus on the cause, the relevance of humans, or how significant it is.

    yeah, largely mistaken

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    Oh one last thing. Just to point out the hypocrisies of everybody else, New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal EITHER so at this point NOBODY has given evidence to suggest Global Warming does or does not exist.

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

    Hmm... if only there was a source we could cite that would bring together the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists...

    IPCC CAN YOU DIG IT?

    Wow, you linked to an organization who had to immediately change their forecasts after launching their initial summary. I was going to let someone else have this, but it's too easy: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/fos_sfp.htm

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Proto wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people agree the earth is getting warmer, but there's no consensus on the cause, the relevance of humans, or how significant it is.

    yeah, largely mistaken

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    Oh one last thing. Just to point out the hypocrisies of everybody else, New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal EITHER so at this point NOBODY has given evidence to suggest Global Warming does or does not exist.

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

    Hmm... if only there was a source we could cite that would bring together the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists...

    IPCC CAN YOU DIG IT?

    Wow, you linked to an organization who had to immediately change their forecasts after launching their initial summary. I was going to let someone else have this, but it's too easy: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/fos_sfp.htm
    Posted 20, October, 2002

    try again buckaroo.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Proto wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Proto wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people agree the earth is getting warmer, but there's no consensus on the cause, the relevance of humans, or how significant it is.

    yeah, largely mistaken

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    Oh one last thing. Just to point out the hypocrisies of everybody else, New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal EITHER so at this point NOBODY has given evidence to suggest Global Warming does or does not exist.

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

    Hmm... if only there was a source we could cite that would bring together the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists...

    IPCC CAN YOU DIG IT?

    Wow, you linked to an organization who had to immediately change their forecasts after launching their initial summary. I was going to let someone else have this, but it's too easy: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/fos_sfp.htm
    Posted 20, October, 2002

    try again buckaroo.

    It's still relevant. That was the same organization and it made glaring mistakes with its thousands of scientists. Plus it's coming from a government agency, which we all decided were patently false already. Time doesn't heal all wounds, and just because it was from 2002 doesn't mean it's not very telling today. In fact, I thought we were supposed to learn from history so we don't make the same mistakes all over again....

    EDIT: Moreover, many of the critiques back then are still issues in today's IPCC release. If you want a current analysis, here you go: http://www.environmentnc.com/?p=65
    http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/05/11/climate-news/akasofu-ipcc-is-wrong-and-polar-bears-can-eat-grass/
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Climate-change-report-is-wrong-academic/2007/04/05/1175366368843.html

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    1. Changes in Temperature and Precipitation Extremes in the IPCC Ensemble of Global Coupled Model Simulations. By: Kharin, Viatcheslav V.; Zwiers, Francis W.; Xuebin Zhang; Hegerl, Gabriele C.. Journal of Climate, Apr2007, Vol. 20 Issue 8, p1419-1444, 26p, 6 charts, 16 graphs; DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4066.1; (AN 24733115)

    2. It's Five Minutes to Midnight. Alternatives Journal, 2007, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p6-6, 1/3p; (AN 24877857)

    3. Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity. By: Botkin, Daniel B.; Saxe, Henrik; Araújo, Miguel B.; Betts, Richard; Bradshaw, Richard H. W.; Cedhagen, Tomas; Chesson, Peter; Dawson, Terry P.; Etterson, Julie R.; Faith, Daniel P.; Ferrier, Simon; Guisan, Antoine; Hansen, Anja Skjoldborg; Hilbert, David W.; Loehle, Craig; Margules, Chris; New, Mark; Sobel, Matthew J.; Stockwell, David R. B.. Bioscience, Mar2007, Vol. 57 Issue 3, p227-236, 10p, 1 chart; DOI: 10.1641/B570306; (AN 24482064)

    4. Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. By: Hegerl, Gabriele C.; Crowley, Thomas J.; Allen, Myles; Hyde, William T.; Pollack, Henry N.; Smerdon, Jason; Zorita, Eduardo. Journal of Climate, Feb2007, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p650-666, 17p, 3 charts, 6 graphs; DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4011.1; (AN 23940652)

    5. A Multimodel Update on the Detection and Attribution of Global Surface Warming. By: Stone, Dáithí A.; Allen, Myles R.; Stott, Peter A.. Journal of Climate, Feb2007, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p517-530, 14p, 2 charts, 7 graphs; (AN 23940638)

    There. That took all of ten minutes, and damn you for making me do it.
    All peer-reviewed. All say Global Warming exists. All between January 2006 and May 2007. Hell, I'll even quote a bit of the abstract for you on that last one...
    Greenhouse gas and solar irradiance changes are found to have contributed to a best guess of ∼0.8 and ∼0.3 K warming over the 1901–2005 period, respectively, while sulfate aerosols have contributed a ∼0.4 K cooling. This analysis provides an observationally constrained estimate of future warming, which is found to be fairly robust across GCMs. By 2100, a warming of between about 1.5 and 4.5 K can be expected

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    I'm looking for balance in this whole thing, because I feel like global warming has become a religion used to sell new cars, polarize political bases, etc.


    Yes, because clearly the anti-global warming side, you know, the one whos research is funded almost entirely by the petrolium industry, certainly doesn't have anything to gain from poking holes in global climate change.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    You hadn't heard that?

    I had a libertarian professor last spring who tried to convince me that land conservation was just a way for the government to take hold of more land and deprive people of property rights.

    Oh, environmentalism has very much come to replace communism in the minds of certain segments of our society.

    The former John Birch society segments.

    Shinto on
  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    I like the guy on TDS who argued that we should pollute and progress as much as possible, because that only hastens the production of the technology that will allow us to survive and combat the effects of pollution and progress. Anyone remember that guy?

    I don't know his name. I also don't know why he swallowed a fly.

    I guess we'll die.

    This reminds me of when Spinal Tap put out their album "Break Like the Wind" in 1992. They distributed it in an extra-large package so that there would be more to recycle.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Even if global warming isn't real/isn't as big a problem as we're led to believe...
    Even if it isn't caused by human activities...
    Even if it cannot be solved...

    Why shouldn't we strive to reduce the ecological impact of transportation anyways? We established decades ago that the production and use of fossil fuels is environmentally devastating in dozens of ways. We know that our wellbeing is linked to that of the planet. We already have several viable alternatives lined up. It would not be difficult to almost completely ease ourselves off oil over a period of 20-30 years. It would also not require significant effort on any individual's part to reduce our energy consumption as a whole, merely the participation of the majority. Seriously, all Joe Average has to do is start carpooling to work. All government has to do is stop subsidizing the oil industry, use the resulting billions of dollars in savings to modernize our transportation infrastructure, demolish all the coal power plants, and restrict (and ultimately ban) the production of commuter vehicles that use fossil fuels. Corporations can adapt, and if they don't want to, fuck 'em. It's not like western civilization will collapse just because a bunch of gas-burning dinosaurs were too fucking greedy.

    Sure, it'll be mildly inconvenient for a while, but at the very least we'll end up with cleaner air, more efficient cars and less gridlock.

    This isn't environmentalism or crazy left-wing jingoism. It's just common fucking sense.

    Azio on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    From my hometown newspaper:

    County commissioners Addison "Sonny” Wheelock, Dick Thomas and Margaret Underwood all recently opined on the state of the environment and the concept of global warming.


    Among them, the commissioners tied global warming to socialism, suggested sending an e-mail to the sun and pointed out that dinosaurs didn't drive expensive foreign cars.


    "I believe the Sierra Club, along with Al Gore, President Carter and the United Nations are socialistic organizations that are trying to change the government of this country, and I am opposed to everything they support or try to (foist) on us to do,” Underwood said at a March 14 public meeting. "I cannot support this unproven theory of global warming.”

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    From my hometown newspaper:

    County commissioners Addison "Sonny” Wheelock, Dick Thomas and Margaret Underwood all recently opined on the state of the environment and the concept of global warming.


    Among them, the commissioners tied global warming to socialism, suggested sending an e-mail to the sun and pointed out that dinosaurs didn't drive expensive foreign cars.


    "I believe the Sierra Club, along with Al Gore, President Carter and the United Nations are socialistic organizations that are trying to change the government of this country, and I am opposed to everything they support or try to (foist) on us to do,” Underwood said at a March 14 public meeting. "I cannot support this unproven theory of global warming.”

    Once again, rational discourse in the U.S. is kicked up a notch.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2007
    Meiz wrote: »
    I only recently became aware of the scope by reading D&D.

    Gary Gygax is a premier authority on climatology.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Meiz wrote: »
    I only recently became aware of the scope by reading D&D.

    Gary Gygax is a premier authority on climatology.

    Along with the rest of the Vice Presidential Action Rangers.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • One Thousand CablesOne Thousand Cables An absence of thought Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Meiz wrote: »
    I only recently became aware of the scope by reading D&D.

    Gary Gygax is a premier authority on climatology.

    As a member of the Vice Presidential Action Rangers, I imagine he would be.

    Edit: Oh fuck you, Sentry.

    One Thousand Cables on
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Al Gore wouldn't lie.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    From my hometown newspaper:

    County commissioners Addison "Sonny” Wheelock, Dick Thomas and Margaret Underwood all recently opined on the state of the environment and the concept of global warming.


    Among them, the commissioners tied global warming to socialism, suggested sending an e-mail to the sun and pointed out that dinosaurs didn't drive expensive foreign cars.


    "I believe the Sierra Club, along with Al Gore, President Carter and the United Nations are socialistic organizations that are trying to change the government of this country, and I am opposed to everything they support or try to (foist) on us to do,” Underwood said at a March 14 public meeting. "I cannot support this unproven theory of global warming.”

    "Well, these guys are obviously communist, so anything they ever say or have said is totally without merit."

    :|

    Mr Pink on
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    thwack.gif

    Just my opinion of trying to argue with those who don't believe in global warming.

    Tach on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    This was one of the points in the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' as well, accompanied with various videos of hippies. They made great pains to point out as many links between the modern green parties and the older socialist ones as they could.

    Course if you are trying to argue the same point to the left, then they'll argue that the real reason behind the movement is western industry trying to keep the third world down and prevent them moving away from subsistance farming. Fantastically, the GGWS actually used both points - apparently global warming is a scaremonging myth thought up by some unholy alliance between communists and big business.

    Tastyfish on
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    When you map the rise in earth's temperature and the rise in CO2 on the same graph, the rise in CO2 over time lags behind the rise in temperature. Also, the solubility of CO2 in water is reduced as water temperature rises. Warm water holds less CO2 than cool water. The warming of our oceans drives the increase in CO2, not the other way around. Just don't tell anybody, or your libel to get shot.
    Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

    This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

    Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

    Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

    Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    When you map the rise in earth's temperature and the rise in CO2 on the same graph, the rise in CO2 over time lags behind the rise in temperature. Also, the solubility of CO2 in water is reduced as water temperature rises. Warm water holds less CO2 than cool water. The warming of our oceans drives the increase in CO2, not the other way around. Just don't tell anybody, or your libel to get shot.

    Think this covers it

    Lot of these points came up in this thread, which was based around the Great Global Warming Swindle. The rebutal to the documentary is here

    Tastyfish on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    But what I'm getting at is that a lot of people view this as just Communism, Round II, Fight - a cooked-up political ideology that makes American Capitalism the villian and encourages modern thinkers around the world to call for a less successful and less powerful U. S.
    This is an interesting perspective. I'd not thought of it that way.

    This was one of the points in the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' as well, accompanied with various videos of hippies. They made great pains to point out as many links between the modern green parties and the older socialist ones as they could.

    Course if you are trying to argue the same point to the left, then they'll argue that the real reason behind the movement is western industry trying to keep the third world down and prevent them moving away from subsistance farming. Fantastically, the GGWS actually used both points - apparently global warming is a scaremonging myth thought up by some unholy alliance between communists and big business.
    I have to admit that is ambitious.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    EDIT: Moreover, many of the critiques back then are still issues in today's IPCC release. If you want a current analysis, here you go:

    Those aren't exactly the best analysis as they just rehash the usual global warming myths, some actual science would have been nice.
    imbalanced wrote: »

    Talks about the IPCC working group II, which "assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it. "

    ie. not whether or not global warming is happening. Thus, not relevant here.
    imbalanced wrote: »

    Ah yes, the old "We are just recovering from the little ice age" argument.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/172523/81

    The end of that is just weird. Dissenting scientists fearing for their lives? No evidence for man-made greenhouse warming? What? Plus the usual hints of "there really isn't a consensus!" without any backing proof. Awesome.
    imbalanced wrote: »

    Pretty light on facts, but seems to be a "sun is doing it" argument.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    I have good news and bad news.

    First, carbon emissions are not in fact warming the planet.

    Second, the planet is in fact warming.

    Third, it is warming because it is falling into the sun.

    Shinto on
  • Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    If every American planted 5 trees a year it would counter the carbon output of the nation. Planting a tree costs between nothing (seed, water, sunshine!) and $50-$100 for some of the more exotic trees, assuming you plant a seedling.

    Assuming a high-end estimate of $500 per American, this puts carbon neutrality at $150 Billion annually. There are some estimates that the Kyoto Protocol will cost participating countries about $165 billion annually, and that's not even close to carbon neutrality.

    Obviously the tree planting program wouldn't be perfect, since some trees would not live the decades required to sequester the carbon output for that year. However, surely some of the trees would reproduce and produce more forests, so I'm sure it'd balance out.

    I think, personally, the tree planting program is a much better idea then implementing carbon reduction techniques or fines on American coal manufacturers. Planting a tree is something everyone, even children, can do and really helps connect to nature and the impact that the individual person can make a difference. Perhaps it'll encourage people to live a more greener lifestyle. Even if you don't believe in global warming, what's the harm in planting some trees?

    Having some sort of "oh... I'm paying 13% more in energy bills this Summer because of some greenhouse tax..." makes it impersonal and loses some of the moral integrity of the movement. Like you can pay off being a dick to the planet by paying an energy tax to the US government. Money which probably just will go towards building bombs, rather then finding realistic solutions to a more environmental society and man.

    Alexan Drite on
Sign In or Register to comment.