Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Convincing people that global warming is a real thing

12357

Posts

  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    As shown by an earlier graph we are not at either a high point in temperature or a high point CO2 ppm then the last 400k years let alone the some odd 4 billion years this planet has been mostly tropical. Just so I know for further reference though how much of that 5% that we are responsible for is too much? Whats the magical number that puts this planets ecosystem on red alert?

    Er... I posted that, not realizing it stopped at 1950... so it doesn't really prove that as much as I thought it did.

    It does, however, seem to indicate extreme highs and lows in CO2 and global temperature have occurred before man started making machines.

    graph

    That shows the Temperature / [CO2] relation, and adds an arrow where we currently are. As to how much reduction is enough? Truely we don't really know. We've already messed it up, and we are going to have to see where it ends. We've let the cat out of the bag. Current treaties mostly only try to stop any further growth of the pollution. Doubt that that's enough, but maybe it can get to an equilibrium, where we can at least see the consequences. The G8 has suggested a 50% reduction by 2050, but I fear that's just a pipedream.

    I made a crude update to the graph posted earlier, unfortunately I'm at work so only have access to Pages so it's not exact:

    afteri.png

    Given that the graph goes by 10,000 year increments I had to put the line straight up to reflect such a small amount of time. About a 100ppmv increase in 60 years.

    You can see another 100ppmv increase on the graph from 200-300 about 330,000 years ago. That jump took about 10,000 years though.

    EDIT: I think I accidently resized the graph on upload... I'll try that again.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    For all the doom and gloom on this topic (Thank you, _J_!), maybe we should discuss what would happen in a worst case scenario?

    I mean, it's already estimated that a sixth of the world's population is starving. Are the consequences of climate change greater than "poor people are even more fucked"?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • TronTron Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I'd be really pissed if rich people were fucked. That's not how a cataclysm is supposed to work.

    Oh noes,
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    SanderJK wrote: »
    That shows the Temperature / [CO2] relation, and adds an arrow where we currently are. As to how much reduction is enough? Truely we don't really know. We've already messed it up, and we are going to have to see where it ends. We've let the cat out of the bag. Current treaties mostly only try to stop any further growth of the pollution. Doubt that that's enough, but maybe it can get to an equilibrium, where we can at least see the consequences. The G8 has suggested a 50% reduction by 2050, but I fear that's just a pipedream.

    Generally most have targets are stopping further growth from a certain point in the past, which does mean reductions from today. It's usually either 2005, 2000, or 1990 (IIRC) and then sometimes a certain percentage below those levels by 2020 or 2050. And I really don't consider cutting emissions in half by 2050 to be so unrealistic provided that structural systems are put in place in order to promote better living patterns.

    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something. A lot of places have reached 'peak suburb' and a lot of officials are taking a holistic approach and more sustainable view towards a great deal of land-use, transportation, and development patterns. That alone accounts for most of emissions. Cleaning up industry can take a long while if we just stop acting stupid in everyday life.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tron wrote: »
    I'd be really pissed if rich people were fucked. That's not how a cataclysm is supposed to work.

    Ah ha ha ha ha

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    As shown by an earlier graph we are not at either a high point in temperature or a high point CO2 ppm then the last 400k years let alone the some odd 4 billion years this planet has been mostly tropical. Just so I know for further reference though how much of that 5% that we are responsible for is too much? Whats the magical number that puts this planets ecosystem on red alert?

    Er... I posted that, not realizing it stopped at 1950... so it doesn't really prove that as much as I thought it did.

    It does, however, seem to indicate extreme highs and lows in CO2 and global temperature have occurred before man started making machines.

    I'm sorry if I came across dickish when I refuted that graph.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm sorry if I came across dickish when I refuted that graph.

    I've had worse... what with not being quite as left-wing as a lot of the people I associate with in person and on the internets. =)

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

  • TronTron Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I know people hate the "future will save us" answer, but effective and timely adaptation from fossil to a renewable/nuke center energy structure is really the safest bet towards not destroying our civilisation. And while the more conservative elements of the political sphere like to point out how much they love America and her gleaming, high tech future, any mention of strategic political action towards this end provokes the "Internationl cooperation and electric cars? What do I look like some socialcommufag?"

    Also for the hard left. Hippies need to suck it up and embrace our brilliant atomic future.

    Oh noes,
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

    This and a whoooole lot of other really cheap solutions.

    How much glazing do you have on the southside facade of your house or any other building you interact with? How many of them have sun shades, light shelves, and/or awnings on them? Why not?

    This isn't an issue of wasteful like 'people are littering half eaten sandwiches' wasteful, it's more like 'people are being made to pay a great deal of money in order to feel more uncomfortable for no real reason' kinds of wasteful. Eliminating traffic congestion would save $87bn per year and 3bn gallons of gas (meaning a great deal of pollution from being emitted into the atmosphere) and 4bn hours (500,000 years) of wasted time collectively. I can't imagine too many people fighting tooth and nail in order to keep their extra 20 minutes tacked onto a commute moving at a crawl.

    tea-1.jpg
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

    This and a whoooole lot of other really cheap solutions.

    How much glazing do you have on the southside facade of your house or any other building you interact with? How many of them have sun shades, light shelves, and/or awnings on them? Why not?

    This isn't an issue of wasteful like 'people are littering half eaten sandwiches' wasteful, it's more like 'people are being made to pay a great deal of money in order to feel more uncomfortable for no real reason' kinds of wasteful. Eliminating traffic congestion would save $87bn per year and 3bn gallons of gas (meaning a great deal of pollution from being emitted into the atmosphere) and 4bn hours (500,000 years) of wasted time collectively. I can't imagine too many people fighting tooth and nail in order to keep their extra 20 minutes tacked onto a commute moving at a crawl.

    So you want to ration my clusterfuck of a commute? What are you, Canadian?

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • RussellRussell Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Tron wrote: »
    I know people hate the "future will save us" answer, but effective and timely adaptation from fossil to a renewable/nuke center energy structure is really the safest bet towards not destroying our civilisation. And while the more conservative elements of the political sphere like to point out how much they love America and her gleaming, high tech future, any mention of strategic political action towards this end provokes the "Internationl cooperation and electric cars? What do I look like some socialcommufag?"

    Also for the hard left. Hippies need to suck it up and embrace our brilliant atomic future.

    Says the guy with the Dr. Strangelove avatar :P

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

    This and a whoooole lot of other really cheap solutions.

    How much glazing do you have on the southside facade of your house or any other building you interact with? How many of them have sun shades, light shelves, and/or awnings on them? Why not?

    This isn't an issue of wasteful like 'people are littering half eaten sandwiches' wasteful, it's more like 'people are being made to pay a great deal of money in order to feel more uncomfortable for no real reason' kinds of wasteful. Eliminating traffic congestion would save $87bn per year and 3bn gallons of gas (meaning a great deal of pollution from being emitted into the atmosphere) and 4bn hours (500,000 years) of wasted time collectively. I can't imagine too many people fighting tooth and nail in order to keep their extra 20 minutes tacked onto a commute moving at a crawl.

    How much would it actually cost to eliminate traffic congestion, though?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

    This and a whoooole lot of other really cheap solutions.

    How much glazing do you have on the southside facade of your house or any other building you interact with? How many of them have sun shades, light shelves, and/or awnings on them? Why not?

    This isn't an issue of wasteful like 'people are littering half eaten sandwiches' wasteful, it's more like 'people are being made to pay a great deal of money in order to feel more uncomfortable for no real reason' kinds of wasteful. Eliminating traffic congestion would save $87bn per year and 3bn gallons of gas (meaning a great deal of pollution from being emitted into the atmosphere) and 4bn hours (500,000 years) of wasted time collectively. I can't imagine too many people fighting tooth and nail in order to keep their extra 20 minutes tacked onto a commute moving at a crawl.

    So you want to ration my clusterfuck of a commute? What are you, Canadian?

    It's not even that, it's creating more options and choices amongst the populace. A number of which are already being promoted in spite of governmental agencies rather than in compliment with them. Housing prices near transit stations/nodes are the only places where the prices are rising meanwhile exurban homes collapsed worse than anywhere else. This is sort of part of the whole 'peak suburb' thing I was talking about. Seeing how there's only so much real estate next to a transit connection the most obvious solution to bringing prices down (and profit off of it) is to increase the number of transit hubs, thus transforming the real estate nearby. &c.

    And this is just with regards to public trans. Never mind land use tweaks, zoning changes, and other 'smart growth' stuff that would also have a big dent. And never mind materials and building design that would eliminate tons of wasted power demand without even doing the cool stuff like BIPV's and tromb walls and shit that could cost $Connecticut.

    tea-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Westforde wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    I don't need to come back later. Any type of taxation on the production of something as basic and exerted by every living animal. According to the AGW philosophy its that while we humans make an overall minor part of CO2 production in our industrial and automotive industries and products, that the minor part we are responsible for is the tipping point that will forever screw up a 4.5 billion year old planet. So what it proposes much like a cigarette sin tax that we while it lowers our overall usage by a very minor portion we turn it into a revenue stream for the government. While in the truth climate prediction has been one of the models that science still can't get down because there a bazillion different variables.

    So in the end we "think" that our very minuscule addition of CO2 (the gas most necessary for all life on the planet) is the cause for something we "think" we understand that it "might" be acting odd. On top of that, the most popular theory is to rid the world of its production by dropping it slowly through taxation so the government can use its as a revenue stream. While crossing our fingers the whole time hoping that the minuscule amount of a minuscule amount that stops getting produced will drastically prevent a planet as old and big as earth from spiraling out of control, that we can stop the "trend" and right the planet.

    I am not buying it.

    I'm not going to comment on the rest, as I am sure others will do better than me. But I hear this often among my friends.

    Nobody is saying that the planet will explode or all life will die out. The thing we are mostly concerned is how suitable it we will be for human welfare, which can be drastically effected by a few degrees difference
    It's not even that. It's that modern human civilization, and the commonplace occurrence of millions of people not dying all the time from natural disasters these days, is built upon a lot of climatic assumptions - the change of which will not be easy, pleasant, cheap or low in death toll.

    With enough climate shift you end up with enough convergent problems that the various stabilizing elements of modern society are worn away and eventually it collapses (but in one of those slow, "how did we end up here?" sort of ways where you suddenly realize that there weren't always guard towers that shot outsiders behind barb-wire fences).

    If we end up with a rise in sea levels, fisheries dying out, increasing salinity in farmland/desertification - enough little things all happening at the same time because of climate change, then we start to be in real trouble and you need to start wondering "am I within the top X% of the wealthy who will comfortably survive things like this?"

    Americans should be doubly worried since you definitely don't have the history or governmental belief in looking after the welfare of your citizenry to not have bad things happen to you.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So, basically, mitigating pollution isn't so much about going back to the Dark Ages as it is about not being ludicrously wasteful and shortsighted? How are we supposed to fix things when we've been relying on flawed, inefficient practices for so long?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So, basically, mitigating pollution isn't so much about going back to the Dark Ages as it is about not being ludicrously wasteful and shortsighted? How are we supposed to fix things when we've been relying on flawed, inefficient practices for so long?
    Your question is your answer if it wasn't meant to be ironic.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Also I really want to get my parent's house analyzed to see if we could save some power with double glazed windows everywhere, because holy fucking hell that place gets too cold too quickly if the central heating is off in winter.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    When you look at how much of the pollution is literally produced in order to promote wasteful practices it should cheer you up because that's a loss that can be completely eliminated while improving standards of living rather than confirming the demagogue's fears of forcing everybody to go Amish or something.

    Care to post some examples? Also, what can realistically be done to get people to give up wasteful practices that hasn't been done yet?

    More vice taxes, or simply outlawing products... it sucks, but it would work. At least to some extent.

    Edit: Also, things like better public transit... or simple (though sometimes expensive) changes like "green roofs" on buildings in city centers.

    This and a whoooole lot of other really cheap solutions.

    How much glazing do you have on the southside facade of your house or any other building you interact with? How many of them have sun shades, light shelves, and/or awnings on them? Why not?

    This isn't an issue of wasteful like 'people are littering half eaten sandwiches' wasteful, it's more like 'people are being made to pay a great deal of money in order to feel more uncomfortable for no real reason' kinds of wasteful. Eliminating traffic congestion would save $87bn per year and 3bn gallons of gas (meaning a great deal of pollution from being emitted into the atmosphere) and 4bn hours (500,000 years) of wasted time collectively. I can't imagine too many people fighting tooth and nail in order to keep their extra 20 minutes tacked onto a commute moving at a crawl.

    How much would it actually cost to eliminate traffic congestion, though?

    Less monies than it would create via economic expansion, even if we ignore the cost of pollution.

    In 2002 public trans. got $12.5b in public subsidy. That paid for $19.4b in congestion savings, $8.0b in roadway cost savings, $12.1b in parking cost savings, $22.6b in consumer cost saving, and $5.6b in reduced crash damages. [cite]

    tea-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker have I mentioned it's a joy to watch you post in sustainability threads and think you should champion public policy on this matter?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So, basically, mitigating pollution isn't so much about going back to the Dark Ages as it is about not being ludicrously wasteful and shortsighted? How are we supposed to fix things when we've been relying on flawed, inefficient practices for so long?

    By not subsidizing everything so as to be effectively free?

    If you aren't paying for something it is going to be wasted. That's just the basics of economics and human nature. Change the rules and suddenly people act differently to suit the new environment. It's the basis of the flaw of projection, because projecting anything out far enough presumes the impossible. That nothing ever changes due to conditions.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    If we end up with a rise in sea levels, fisheries dying out, increasing salinity in farmland/desertification - enough little things all happening at the same time because of climate change, then we start to be in real trouble and you need to start wondering "am I within the top X% of the wealthy who will comfortably survive things like this?"

    Americans should be doubly worried since you definitely don't have the history or governmental belief in looking after the welfare of your citizenry to not have bad things happen to you.

    So you're saying I need to go ahead and buy a gun for killing myself while I can still afford it?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker have I mentioned it's a joy to watch you post in sustainability threads and think you should champion public policy on this matter?

    Oh pshaw.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    If we end up with a rise in sea levels, fisheries dying out, increasing salinity in farmland/desertification - enough little things all happening at the same time because of climate change, then we start to be in real trouble and you need to start wondering "am I within the top X% of the wealthy who will comfortably survive things like this?"

    Americans should be doubly worried since you definitely don't have the history or governmental belief in looking after the welfare of your citizenry to not have bad things happen to you.

    So you're saying I need to go ahead and buy a gun for killing myself while I can still afford it?

    I'd just like to clarify that I'm only half-joking.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ceres wrote: »
    It's possible worth mentioning that "since I was old enough to understand anything" takes place approximately 3 years after the scientific community and the world at large was CONVINCED that the planet was going into another ice age over the next 20 years because of global cooling. Global temperature (which people have a hard time defining consistently, I've noticed, was at record lows, and all the data lined up in such a way that had people buying cans and warm winter coats.

    Did anyone point out that this never happened? There was never a scientific consensus that the world was heading into another ice age? That this is just another talking point trotted out by global warming deniers?

    You talk about educating yourself, but you didn't bother to look this one up?

    Here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/#more-536

    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So, how is the forecast looking? I know that this must be an incredibly difficult thing to predict, but I'd really like to know if I'm having a panic attack now for no good reason.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So, how is the forecast looking? I know that this must be an incredibly difficult thing to predict, but I'd really like to know if I'm having a panic attack now for no good reason.

    you are

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    If we end up with a rise in sea levels, fisheries dying out, increasing salinity in farmland/desertification - enough little things all happening at the same time because of climate change, then we start to be in real trouble and you need to start wondering "am I within the top X% of the wealthy who will comfortably survive things like this?"

    Americans should be doubly worried since you definitely don't have the history or governmental belief in looking after the welfare of your citizenry to not have bad things happen to you.

    So you're saying I need to go ahead and buy a gun for killing myself while I can still afford it?

    I'd just like to clarify that I'm only half-joking.

    You still probably should before Obama takes 'em all.

    tea-1.jpg
  • edited July 2009
    I sure could use some of that there global warming up here the Northeast, July 8th and it feels like May if not April.

    Temperatures are bound to change just because of changes in earth's orbit, tilt, etc. Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, all sorts of crap. I no longer buy the CO2 emissions are dooming us nonsense. Perhaps if it does have a minor effect, yet if I does I would it is negligible. Some nonsense carbon credit, cap and trade scheme isn't going to do shit. Efforts taken to suppress those skeptical of global warming haven't done anything to change my opinion either. Seems global warming has increasingly become a tool to promote all sorts of policies.

    Now I support reducing pollution in general, cutting oil use, and more nuclear power including removing old restriction on reprocessing. But we shouldn't keep shooting us in the foot with this CO2 madness. We should take advantage of the coal we have converting it to synthetic oil when needed, etc.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Efforts taken to suppress those skeptical of global warming haven't done anything to change my opinion either.

    YES! DAMN SCIENCE! What with the providing reasonable answers and all to the skepticism!
    I no longer buy the CO2 emissions are dooming us nonsense.

    I seriously doubt you ever "bought" it.

    Maybe you should come in saying why it is wrong rather than just declaring it wrong because it is some kind of suppressive conspiracy.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I sure could use some of that there global warming up here the Northeast, July 8th and it feels like May if not April.

    Temperatures are bound to change just because of changes in earth's orbit, tilt, etc. Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, all sorts of crap. I no longer buy the CO2 emissions are dooming us nonsense. Perhaps if it does have a minor effect, yet if I does I would it is negligible. Some nonsense carbon credit, cap and trade scheme isn't going to do shit. Efforts taken to suppress those skeptical of global warming haven't done anything to change my opinion either. Seems global warming has increasingly become a tool to promote all sorts of policies.

    Now I support reducing pollution in general, cutting oil use, and more nuclear power including removing old restriction on reprocessing. But we shouldn't keep shooting us in the foot with this CO2 madness. We should take advantage of the coal we have converting it to synthetic oil when needed, etc.

    You should realize that a couple degree shift in global temperature does not mean there is a universal constant in the increase of local temperatures and that it would likely lead to further extremes of local climates rather than just making a prototypical 70° day into a 75° day.

    I'm also rather surprised at your dismissal of market based economics. Particularly given a wildly successful program that can act as a direct comparison.

    tea-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Efforts taken to suppress those skeptical of global warming haven't done anything to change my opinion either. Seems global warming has increasingly become a tool to promote all sorts of policies.
    What suppression? They get a voice, they get publications, they write books that are sold in stores, they get opinion articles published in newsletters and entire institutes (funded by, ironically, coal and oil companies) get to tell the conservatives reps of my parliament that it's not happening when they go to visit.

    How are they being suppressed?

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Efforts taken to suppress those skeptical of global warming haven't done anything to change my opinion either. Seems global warming has increasingly become a tool to promote all sorts of policies.
    What suppression? They get a voice, they get publications, they write books that are sold in stores, they get opinion articles published in newsletters and entire institutes (funded by, ironically, coal and oil companies) get to tell the conservatives reps of my parliament that it's not happening when they go to visit.

    How are they being suppressed?

    They don't get facts.

    It's completely unfair that the people who think human influenced global warming is the case have facts on which they can support their claims but those skeptical of global warming get no facts upon which to base their claim.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Feels Good ManFeels Good Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    So, how is the forecast looking? I know that this must be an incredibly difficult thing to predict, but I'd really like to know if I'm having a panic attack now for no good reason.

    I think the best thing for you would be to move away from civilization, where you can't hear any information about anything, buy some land and liquor and just enjoy life because you are incredibly irrational and naive about every negative thing you ever hear. Then again, this could have a lot to do with your age.

  • edited July 2009
    JebusUD wrote: »
    YES! DAMN SCIENCE! What with the providing reasonable answers and all to the skepticism!
    Reasonable answers? You mean that computer modeling telling us how are doomed and people screaming "The Debate is Over" while demanding radical action?
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I seriously doubt you ever "bought" it.

    I used to actually. One year I had an earth science professor I had was rather skeptical of the whole thing and figured if it was true we would run out of resources and nuke each other long before it becomes a serious problem anyway. He urged people to come to their own conclusions on the matter.
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Maybe you should come in saying why it is wrong rather than just declaring it wrong because it is some kind of suppressive conspiracy.

    I am not claiming a massive conspiracy. But manmade global warming "deniers" are immediately jumped on for dare questioning the scienceâ„¢ behind it. Consider what happened here.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html

    Also we are always finding out shit like this.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423205104.htm

    Another interesting opinion piece.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4990704/Nobody-listens-to-the-real-climate-change-experts.html

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    A WSJ opinion piece by a known conservative making an elephant out of the EPA not wanting one of his employees, who is not an expert on the matter, going against policy and undermining them, a study which says ice can disappear much more rapidly then thought (which is quite scary in it's own right, and should work as a motivator to perhaps stop this temperature increase), and a piece in a conservative newspaper about a conference held by a libertarian think tank (visit http://www.heartland.org/about/ for a laugh) as counter weight the IPCC not getting enough attention.

    For some reason I don't see why that debunks global warming at all.

    There is an incredible majority of scientists and organisations that support the idea that Climate Change is happening. Read This handy list on wikipedia.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I don't think you even need the majority list as evidence. Just the fact that the only organizations which run counter to the idea are those which stand to lose financially if the damage they cause by their pollution is suddenly priced in and their taxed on it.

    They mostly have the benefit that unlike nuclear radiation, climate change only really affects poor people first.

  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Global Warming is a real thing.

    But at this point we can't do anything about it.

    Primarily because even if everyone in the US half'd their output you've still got the rest of the world to worry about. It's always on us.

    So in other words, we're fucked eventually no matter what, so enjoy life while you can.

    oIi9lub.png
    Favicon.ico maximumzero / KrSaEN3.png 0860-3352-3335 / a80250598aa8cc2ffb8563e971973b3d5324b5c2185533c7337134de.ico?ad13179b567f3ff7b14378a5232870d1 eBay Shop / twitter-bird-16x16.png Twitter
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The Earth is getting hotter. Are we causing it? Well we have to be contributing something, but are we causing it? It's been hotter than this before, and I'm not talking during the Jurassic - when vikings visited Canada, they grew grapes.

    The Earth has natural cycles and much bigger ups and downs than we'd like. We'd like it to be a perfect, unchanging environment. But that's not how it works.

    JKKaAGp.png
Sign In or Register to comment.