since 1980 the sea level has gone up about 5 cm, and the temp up just half a degree

[-p.tiddy-]

that is a very small change over a very long period of time, 30+ years...no one's beach house is getting flooded any time soon...

not trying to say global warming is a farce or anything like that, I am very much a believer that it is real and a major issue...

HOWEVER it doesn't look like global warming will ever be an issue in MY life

or my kid's life...

or my grandkid's life...

or my great grandkid's life...

ALSO, there is evidence that shows that these slight temp changes are normal and have happened throughout time, without the existence of humans

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png



I'm not an expert on this subject and I am not claiming to be, so no need to get all upset at ME...

but someone tell me why I need to be worried about global warming?...the sea level is rising 8 inches PER CENTURY...it isn't like that is going to wipe California off the map anytime soon

[Jailblazers7]

So we should only worry about climate change whenever the symptoms become serious? I'm no expert on the topic either this is not the kind of topic that should be neglected regardless of whether it appears to be a serious issue in the present or not.

[kNIOKAS]

First of all, you're not concerned about being wiped off of the map, especially being on the mainland. The matter is the subsequent effects that it has on the world. For example, Maldives government thinking of moving their main population to somewhere else is the case at the very end of spectrum. Even the small changes are significant when you think globally, it effects live forms and everything on earth. The tiny change can triger chain reactions and all types of anomalies.
Right now I only can bring hybrid sharks but other posters might contribute later on.

[nathanjizzle]

global warming is a serious issue.. Think about it, you need an average 5 cylinder combustion engine to run and emmit polution just to transport 1 person...how stupid is society?

[-p.tiddy-]

So we should only worry about climate change whenever the symptoms become serious? I'm no expert on the topic either this is not the kind of topic that should be neglected regardless of whether it appears to be a serious issue in the present or not.
well if it isn't going to affect me, my kids, or my grand kids...then why should I worry?

maybe that comes off super selfish but I won't know anyone after that...



should I really spend time in my life worrying about what is going to happen 5 generations from now?

it's just so far away...

[Jailblazers7]

well if it isn't going to affect me, my kids, or my grand kids...then why should I worry?

maybe that comes off super selfish but I won't know anyone after that...



should I really spend time in my life worrying about what is going to happen 5 generations from now?

it's just so far away...

It doesn't take much effort to live a little cleaner. Recycle more, try to use less energy at home, maybe buy a more fuel efficient car next time around, etc. You don't have to worry your whole life but we could all at least try to make an effort to cause less harm to the environment.

[-p.tiddy-]

It doesn't take much effort to live a little cleaner. Recycle more, try to use less energy at home, maybe buy a more fuel efficient car next time around, etc. You don't have to worry your whole life but we could all at least try to make an effort to cause less harm to the environment.
I DO recycle...my condo building has recycle bins and I use them...and I agree with you...I try to clean up after myself, I don't just litter everything like a thoughtless pig


I am pointing out that it doesn't look like I personally need to worry about global warming affecting MY LIFE...or the life of anyone I will ever know...it doesn't look like an issue for me

[Kblaze8855]

Global warming is real I just dont see any reason to be alarmed. Over a long period of time im sure many many massive climate changes will happen. The great lakes were created when the last ice age ended and the glaciers that covered much of north america began to melt. Im quite sure humanity didnt melt them....

The world has...totally without our input...been half covered in ice or been so hot we would die at the equator. The Sahara desert used to be a gotdamn rainforest. There are bones of hippos and fish under the sand. Deserts in asia used to be under water. So much of the world was frozen you could walk from new York to london without going to the north pole. The great salt lake used to cover all of Utah.

The world gets a lot hotter and cooler and the weather changes the world in major ways that we wont be able to do much of anything about it. Might as well stop bitching and see how it goes.

I believe we are technically still at the end of an ice age. We just dont know it because humanity rose during the end of it. But it takes so long we just consider this...what the world is supposed to be. the world doesnt stay what it is.

There used to be so much rainforest in the world that the oxygen in the air was such that insects could grow to 8-9 feet long. Giant scorpions and so on were all over the place. And other times it was so cold for so long that elephant like creatures(they were not really elephants) grew wool to stay warm.

Its the world. Its natural. Even if we accelerate the process(which im not sure is the case...some volcanoes can all on their own release enough shit into the air to cool the world by 2-3 degrees over a decade). The world isnt gonna do anything it has not done to itself many many many times. Some of it we will like and some of it we wont.

Frankly im happier about global warming than I would be about global cooling if it brings glaciers down to Ohio. I like polar bears and all. But I like chicago too...

[Jailblazers7]

I DO recycle...my condo building has recycle bins and I use them...and I agree with you...I try to clean up after myself, I don't just litter everything like a thoughtless pig


I am pointing out that it doesn't look like I personally need to worry about global warming affecting MY LIFE...or the life of anyone I will ever know...it doesn't look like an issue for me

Dude we can't even predict the weather lol there is so much uncertainty in shit like this. I don't really trust any predictions or reports completely. I don't know how much any of us actually worry about stuff like this tho. Most of us just push it aside aand obsess over day-to-day issues.

[Bigsmoke]

i live in the midwest. :pimp:

i'll be fine.

[rufuspaul]

well if it isn't going to affect me, my kids, or my grand kids...then why should I worry?

maybe that comes off super selfish but I won't know anyone after that...
.

Primetime in a nutshell.

[-p.tiddy-]

Primetime in a nutshell.
well...

it isn't like my great great great great grandfather gave me any thought


it is likely that your great great great great gandkids won't know you ever existed rufus unless they read your threads in here debating which posters are good and which aren't

[rufuspaul]

well...

it isn't like my great great great great grandfather gave me any thought


it is likely that your great great great great gandkids won't know you ever existed rufus unless they read your threads in here debating which posters are good and which aren't

Yeah, so I really shouldn't give a shit about it.:rolleyes: What doesn't directly affect me in the here in now is none of my business.:rolleyes:

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, so I really shouldn't give a shit about it.:rolleyes: What doesn't directly affect me in the here in now is none of my business.:rolleyes:
no you should freak out because your great great great great grand daughter who has 0:00001% of your DNA might see the ocean rise 12 whole inches

[Bigsmoke]

really 5 cm isnt that much.

[rufuspaul]

no you should freak out because your great great great great grand daughter who has 0:00001% of your DNA might see the ocean rise 12 whole inches

Jump to extremes much? Are those my only 2 choices of action?

[-p.tiddy-]

how about you stop taking shit so personal and just talk about the subject at hand rufus?

why does everything have to be about posters triats with you?

[rufuspaul]

how about you stop taking shit so personal and just talk about the subject at hand rufus?

why does everything have to be about posters triats with you?

Nothing personal, some posters are just predictable, me included.

[Kblaze8855]

Care or not there is nothing you can do to stop it. Or even alter it. If every human got in on it...ok. But they wont. And even if they did...some volcano would erupt or something like the Tunguska event would happen on a larger scale or a large asteriod strike would happen again and emit as much pollution as all of humanity has since the industrial revolution and block out the sun for 3 years.....

A volcano in Hawaii spits out 2000 tons of sulfur a day every now and then. All of washington states factories and such combined do 120 tons a day....

And they dont even count carbon dioxide which is the main thing causing global warming.

If 20 times the people who currently care....started trying to reduce emissions...we couldnt even make up for what volcanoes do.

The human machine is too big and has been going too fast for too long for what any one(or any 100 million) do to make a major difference. We might have more impact than nature. I cant say. But I can say with near certainty that the shit we are supposed to be so afraid of causing has happened without our input many times already.

Death valley was under water before and it will be again. And there is nothing we can do about it.

[rufuspaul]

Care or not there is nothing you can do to stop it. Or even alter it. If every human got in on it...ok. But they wont. And even if they did...some volcano would erupt or something like the Tunguska event would happen on a larger scale or a large asteriod strike would happen again and emit as much pollution as all of humanity has since the industrial revolution and block out the sun for 3 years.....

A volcano in Hawaii spits out 2000 tons of sulfur a day every now and then. All of washington states factories and such combined do 120 tons a day....

And they dont even count carbon dioxide which is the main thing causing global warming.

If 20 times the people who currently care....started trying to reduce emissions...we couldnt even make up for what volcanoes do.

The human machine is too big and has been going too fast for too long for what any one(or any 100 million) do to make a major difference. We might have more impact than nature. I cant say. But I can say with near certainty that the shit we are supposed to be so afraid of causing has happened without our input many times already.

Death valley was under water before and it will be again. And there is nothing we can do about it.

It's interesting to think about our future abilities to adapt though isn't it? I mean we have the ability to track asteroids and perhaps blow them up like Armageddon. Maybe future generations will have the smarts to adapt. As long as primetime doesn't procreate.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Its hard to make any kind of judgement right now, i think we need more graphs.

[KevinNYC]

HOWEVER it doesn't look like global warming will ever be an issue in MY life

or my kid's life...

or my grandkid's life...

or my great grandkid's life...

You're taking a very optimistic view. The problem seems to be that the effects of global warming on sea level rise is accelerating. When glaciers melt or break off huge icebergs, an iceberg 4 times the size of manhattan in 2010 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/biggest-iceberg-in-half-a-century-floats-toward-atlantic-shipping-lanes.html) and icebergs the size of New York City (http://io9.com/5856617/iceberg-the-size-of-new-york-city-splitting-off-from-antarctic-ice-sheet) now forming in the Antarctic, that ice ain't coming back which means the melting is increase.

From National Geographic.


The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

[DeuceWallaces]

Those BS temp graphs and minuscule sea level facts don't mean shit. There will always be some oddball in a slurry of stats that someone can be a blowhard with.

All that matters is this:

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/CO2-10000-years-37795965315.jpeg

That is a problem, and we don't have a full understanding of the consequences of that graph, which could be apocalyptic, for the long term.

[-p.tiddy-]

so from 1800 to now Carbon Dioxide in the air has gone from around 275 ppm to 375 ppm

is that a lot or no?

[DeuceWallaces]

Something not budging more than 10% for 10 thousand years and then jumping 50%+ in 150 years should be alarming to the sane.

[rufuspaul]

Its hard to make any kind of judgement right now, i think we need more graphs.

:roll: :roll:

repped

[Nick Young]

Global Warming enthusiasts are simply chicken littles.

Look at the history of the world. The temperature has gone up and down ON IT'S OWN BELIEVE IT OR NOT :eek:

In the European heat wave of the 900s, the temperature shift was much more dramatic then the temperature shift we have recorded the past 50 years that apparently is all due to human caused carbon emmissions.

According to what idiot global warming enthusiast you believe, California was supposed to be flooded either by now or 5 years from now.

These people are just fear mongers and uneducated idiots fall for and believe every little fear mongering thing they say.

[Nick Young]

Something not budging more than 10% for 10 thousand years and then jumping 50%+ in 150 years should be alarming to the sane.
If you were alive during one of the ice ages you would have thought humans caused it too probably:facepalm

[rufuspaul]

If you were alive during one of the ice ages you would have thought humans caused it too probably:facepalm

It was the flatulence from those damn mammoths.

[DeuceWallaces]

If you were alive during one of the ice ages you would have thought humans caused it too probably:facepalm

You're a ****ing moron.

[nightprowler10]

Care or not there is nothing you can do to stop it. Or even alter it. If every human got in on it...ok. But they wont. And even if they did...some volcano would erupt or something like the Tunguska event would happen on a larger scale or a large asteriod strike would happen again and emit as much pollution as all of humanity has since the industrial revolution and block out the sun for 3 years.....

A volcano in Hawaii spits out 2000 tons of sulfur a day every now and then. All of washington states factories and such combined do 120 tons a day....

And they dont even count carbon dioxide which is the main thing causing global warming.

If 20 times the people who currently care....started trying to reduce emissions...we couldnt even make up for what volcanoes do.

The human machine is too big and has been going too fast for too long for what any one(or any 100 million) do to make a major difference. We might have more impact than nature. I cant say. But I can say with near certainty that the shit we are supposed to be so afraid of causing has happened without our input many times already.
Death valley was under water before and it will be again. And there is nothing we can do about it.
Yup. The fact that we think we can make a difference by taking tiny measures to reduce emissions goes to show how naive and arrogant we are as a species.

[DeuceWallaces]

Please explain the tiny insignificant measures that are being taken or proposed?

[-p.tiddy-]

Please explain the tiny insignificant measures that are being taken or proposed?
sure he means things like driving a hybrid...which use coal burning electricity

recycling, which probably has a very minimal change on the amount of deforestation

etc

[N0Skillz]

Must be texans

[Jello]

Those BS temp graphs and minuscule sea level facts don't mean shit. There will always be some oddball in a slurry of stats that someone can be a blowhard with.

All that matters is this:



That is a problem, and we don't have a full understanding of the consequences of that graph, which could be apocalyptic, for the long term.
Can you provide any proof of the positive feedback of CO2 on warming of the atmosphere?

[KevinNYC]

Can you provide any proof of the positive feedback of CO2 on warming of the atmosphere?

Is the work of the thousands of scientists who worked on the Intergovermnet Panel on Climate Change enough proof for you? Here's their summary. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html)


2. Causes of change <>
Changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system. {2.2}

Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).[5] {2.1}

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

[Meticode]

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of Global Warming that I talk to. Most people I talk to don't understand that from studying evidence that Global Warming is a natural cycle of the Earth. The Earth heats and cools over long periods of time. Where humans come into play is that we are introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate that the Earth is not used to having. From records studied from ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years ago, there hasn't be this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ever in those records...

...the thing is, is that the Earth is going to change whether we want it to or not, but are we going to effect this natural change so much that it turns catastrophic for human civilization? I think we'll meet our own demise probably sometime in the far future. We're an infection on this planet and it will deal with us the same way an organism will deal with a disease and wipe it out.

[-p.tiddy-]

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of Global Warming that I talk to. Most people I talk to don't understand that from studying evidence that Global Warming is a natural cycle of the Earth. The Earth heats and cools over long periods of time. Where humans come into play is that we are introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate that the Earth is not used to having. From records studied from ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years ago, there hasn't be this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ever in those records...

...the thing is, is that the Earth is going to change whether we want it to or not, but are we going to effect this natural change so much that it turns catastrophic for human civilization? I think we'll meet our own demise probably sometime in the far future. We're an infection on this planet and it will deal with us the same way an organism will deal with a disease and wipe it out.
okay so if CO2 isn't doing anything to the climate or sea level...what harm is it doing exactly?

Deuce says we don't have a full understanding of the consequences...well we know that RIGHT NOW there is a more CO2 in the air than ever before and we aren't seeing anything apocalyptic...that is undeniable

[gigantes]

civilisation lost this battle. that's all that's really left to say at this point.

we no longer have the window of opportunity, nor the economic resources, to avert runaway GW. human nature won, essentially.

mostly what's left is just to watch the whole thing play out...

[Jello]

Is the work of the thousands of scientists who worked on the Intergovermnet Panel on Climate Change enough proof for you? Here's their summary. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html)
That's not what I asked for. Give me proof of positive feedback of CO2

[KevinNYC]

okay so if CO2 isn't doing anything to the climate or sea level...what harm is it doing exactly?

Deuce says we don't have a full understanding of the consequences...well we know that RIGHT NOW there is a more CO2 in the air than ever before and we aren't seeing anything apocalyptic...that is undeniable

So if a nurse takes three pints of blood from you that's cool, that's not apocalyptic and then the next day they take 5 pints from you....well you're feeling a bit off, but nothing apocalyptic. then the next day they want 8 pints....you'd be fine with that right?

Also our oceans are turning to acid. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

[QUOTE]However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside

[-p.tiddy-]

So if a nurse takes three pints of blood from you that's cool, that's not apocalyptic and then the next day they take 5 pints from you....well you're feeling a bit off, but nothing apocalyptic. then the next day they want 8 pints....you'd be fine with that right?

Also our oceans are turning to acid. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
replace "pints" with "drops" and it is closer to a good comparison I think...

read the thread title...in my life time the temp has gone up .5 degrees...the ocean has risen 5 cms....it has done NOTHING to me

[KevinNYC]

That's not what I asked for. Give me proof of positive feedback of CO2

Aw, you want to reproduce the work of those thousands of scientists. OK, gotcha. I thought you might want that.

Do you want to give you proof positive that structure of DNA forms a double-helix? Because I can't give you that either without referring to the work scientists.

[Jello]

Aw, you want to reproduce the work of those thousands of scientists. OK, gotcha. I thought you might want that.

Do you want to give you proof positive that structure of DNA forms a double-helix? Because I can't give you that either without referring to the work scientists.
It is common knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the amplification of warming and positive feedback of CO2 is used by AGW proponents when the statistics do not show the same trend. In fact, trends have shown rise in temperature->rise in CO2. Actual stats have shown CO2 increase have lagged behind temperature increase by 600 years and positive feedback amplification have not occurred and has been contradicted. If you want proof, I can reproduce it for you, but you can sit there and use sources from the IPCC which is a political organization.

[Balla_Status]

I'm doing my best to help out.

[Kblaze8855]

It's interesting to think about our future abilities to adapt though isn't it? I mean we have the ability to track asteroids and perhaps blow them up like Armageddon. Maybe future generations will have the smarts to adapt. As long as primetime doesn't procreate.

Its nice to picture a star trek like future where we control the weather and shoot down any threats 20 light years away. But its likely so far away we cant even imagine the world of that time.

Way I see it is simple...

There is virtually nothing we can do to this planet short of I guess nuking a lot of it that will do nearly the damage that nature does. We act like we are wiping out all these animals as if half the things on earth dont die out of the blue all through the fossil record. We act like we are gonna...what? Melt the ice caps? And then what? They used to extend down to like Kansas. Or...barely be there at all. I notice the planet and the creatures on it survived.

Humanity has much much much more to worry about from itself than our impact on a planet that does more to "hurt" itself as far as how comfortable is it for us to live on....than we ever could.

You would have to live thousands of years to even notice a change. And even if it went in a period of 100 years(a totally absurd assmption by the way) the sea level would rise so slowly nobody would be in danger.

Animals would just....walk away from the water approaching at a few hundred feet a year instead of a few fractions of an inch. We would simply....back up off the beaches. After maybe 20 years of impossibly fast global warming people would be flying over the flooded remains of old coastal towns taking pictures saying "I told you so..." while the people who lived there would be watching in comfort having moved into some of that huge empty area in the middle of most large land masses(people always concentrate near water).

Awful lot of empty space in the midwest. Central africa and asia. The rainforests are vast(despite us losing them at unheardof rates). Humanity just gathers near water. We would all just...back up a bit.

But its not ending the world. Its not even ending the world as we know it. The animals sure wouldnt give a ****. They are only here because asteriods, greater climate change than we will ever see, continental shift related earthquakes, and endless storms couldnt wipe them out.

Humans are pretty arrogant really talking about the damage we do. The earth is so far beyond our ability to hurt....

We can make it less appealing for us to live on parts of it....

But the Earth is, was, and will be fine. And the animals we try to protect might well outlast us.

We only have like 6-7 thousand years of written history in any form and only 5-6 hundred years of well documented history. Ground sloths had a run of a few million years. We are barely a footnote on this planetsh istory.

This world is billions of years old. It doesnt need us and we arent nearly as important to its ability to generate life as we think.

We could probably set off 100 nukes and the world would be fine...in time.

Your car sure as hell wont matter big picture wise. And a million others wont either.

[Kblaze8855]

Seems i estimated low. We have already set off over 2000 nukes just in testing. Perhaps 5000 at once would really harm the planet......

Im sure a few well placed ones would cause us major trouble. But the planet itself seems fine after taking 2000 of our best punches on the chin

[heyhey]

Its nice to picture a star trek like future where we control the weather and shoot down any threats 20 light years away. But its likely so far away we cant even imagine the world of that time.

Way I see it is simple...

There is virtually nothing we can do to this planet short of I guess nuking a lot of it that will do nearly the damage that nature does. We act like we are wiping out all these animals as if half the things on earth dont die out of the blue all through the fossil record. We act like we are gonna...what? Melt the ice caps? And then what? They used to extend down to like Kansas. Or...barely be there at all. I notice the planet and the creatures on it survived.

Humanity has much much much more to worry about from itself than our impact on a planet that does more to "hurt" itself as far as how comfortable is it for us to live on....than we ever could.

You would have to live thousands of years to even notice a change. And even if it went in a period of 100 years(a totally absurd assmption by the way) the sea level would rise so slowly nobody would be in danger.

Animals would just....walk away from the water approaching at a few hundred feet a year instead of a few fractions of an inch. We would simply....back up off the beaches. After maybe 20 years of impossibly fast global warming people would be flying over the flooded remains of old coastal towns taking pictures saying "I told you so..." while the people who lived there would be watching in comfort having moved into some of that huge empty area in the middle of most large land masses(people always concentrate near water).

Awful lot of empty space in the midwest. Central africa and asia. The rainforests are vast(despite us losing them at unheardof rates). Humanity just gathers near water. We would all just...back up a bit.

But its not ending the world. Its not even ending the world as we know it. The animals sure wouldnt give a ****. They are only here because asteriods, greater climate change than we will ever see, continental shift related earthquakes, and endless storms couldnt wipe them out.

Humans are pretty arrogant really talking about the damage we do. The earth is so far beyond our ability to hurt....

We can make it less appealing for us to live on parts of it....

But the Earth is, was, and will be fine. And the animals we try to protect might well outlast us.

We only have like 6-7 thousand years of written history in any form and only 5-6 hundred years of well documented history. Ground sloths had a run of a few million years. We are barely a footnote on this planetsh istory.

This world is billions of years old. It doesnt need us and we arent nearly as important to its ability to generate life as we think.

We could probably set off 100 nukes and the world would be fine...in time.

Your car sure as hell wont matter big picture wise. And a million others wont either.

the tenor of the mainstream climate debate is not whether we will "destroy" the planet, whatever that means, it's whether there will be enough climate change that large parts of the planet will no longer be hospitable to humans

[Kblaze8855]

Hospitable? People already live places where its 50 below zero for months at a time(parts of Russia for example) and places where 130 degrees isnt record heat. Short of the bottom of the ocean or some crazy elevations or areas of volcanic activity....humanity can live virtually anywhere.

There is always the issue of supplies and so on but...thats already an issue for most of the world south of America and Europe.

I just find humanity too resiliant a virus to even approach being cured by the weather.

Global warming isnt a threat to humanity. Its an annoyance to those of us who are in the first world...and a mild threat to the people the first world only cares about verbally but rarely with action.

[brantonli]

well if it isn't going to affect me, my kids, or my grand kids...then why should I worry?

maybe that comes off super selfish but I won't know anyone after that...



should I really spend time in my life worrying about what is going to happen 5 generations from now?

it's just so far away...

Well why else do you think efforts to reduce humanity's carbon footprint are so slow? Precisely because people think 'Ah well, the future generations will deal with it, I don't have to'. But the future generations aren't here to negotiate with us.

The ENTIRE point of the current campaign to prevent (or at least slow down) global warming is that we don't feel the effects now. That's why we need a campaign to begin with, or else people would already start altering their behavior. But when people finally start doing that, it will be too late. Which is why we need to get a headstart (i.e. now).

Imagine a human being who for some reason, has different consciousnesses every 5 years (so every 5 years, a different being inhabits the body). Right now you are in control, and you smoke 50 cigarettes a day. You know that this will severely affect the other 10 beings next in line for the body, but hey, you don't care, your consciousness is gone after this 5 year period, so might as well smoke, drink and party as hard as you can.

[gigantes]

I just find humanity too resiliant a virus to even approach being cured by the weather.
it's true that man is able to live in some pretty extreme environs, but those conditions hardly resemble the kind of life we've become accustomed to. it's also a pretty fragile existence, and there's no guarantees of any kind that such populations, small as they are, would be able to withstand additional stresses on them. in particular, the kinds of stresses that we are in the process of creating.

look what happened a mere 75,000 years ago to modern man- a supervolcano erupted at lake toba, brought on a prolonged volcanic winter, and only a few thousand people survived globally. and we're all descended from those people, apparently.

so mankind survived by a hair during what had been a relatively stable period. a freaking hair.

now imagine if something similar happened during the period we're headed towards now- a hellish period of regular world draught, tornados, tsunamis, little if any freshwater left, and poisoned oceans.

[Kblaze8855]

Hard to compare 75 thousand years ago with some 4 foot 7 guys running around in tiny groups probably numbering in the thousands....ducking Giant moas and eating grains..to...7 billion people with the advances we have made.

natural disasters have never been less able to destroy us. It sounds odd considering the awful things with earthquakes, and katrina, and issues in the south pacific but really...as you said. At one point we were a moment or two from erased from the planet.

By a volcano. Or any number of other issues. Im sure we got hit hard by the climate change in the ice ages(not that im 100% sure we existed before the last one got as far along as what we consider the ice age).

But now? If you block out the sun for 2 years there are plenty of people who would emerge from shelters just fine. People who dont have them now would still make it. hell we would have a functional government the day the sun came back out. If not through the whole thing. Panic and riots and looting would be out of hand. But humanity would endure.

Nothing short of a life vaporizing asteriod or some kind of otherworldly plague is gonna stop us now. That or skynet. And seems people were still fighting that in the future.

[Kblaze8855]

I did look into a couple super eruptions just now though....

One in the south pacific in 1815 cooled the world so much that 1816 was known as "The year without a summer". frost killed most of the crops in america in may. It was snowing in june and early july....

A gotdamn volcano the previous year made it snow in mid summer.

Nature owns us.

[KeylessEntry]

well if it isn't going to affect me, my kids, or my grand kids...then why should I worry?

maybe that comes off super selfish but I won't know anyone after that...



should I really spend time in my life worrying about what is going to happen 5 generations from now?

it's just so far away...

What are you really saying that you dont care about the future of humanity? Once "everyone you know" is dead then who gives a **** what happens to earth and its inhabitants??


Anyway, sea level change is only a small part of the detrimental effects global climate change. Loss of species diversity, loss of glacier fed waterways, changes to ocean currents that drive weather patterns... these are the things that will seriously **** over the world, not rising water.

[gigantes]

@kblaze,
i understand you, and i agree with some of what you say, but i think the most obvious thjng you're leaving out of your equations is the non-sustainable aspect of all of our so-called accomplishments. the fact that we're living in a far more fragile bubble than most realise, for a large number of natural reasons.

even as i wrote a few paragraphs out explaining my logic on this, i realised the whole thing would take many more paragraphs to make into a complete argument. simply beyond the level of effort i want to put in to a post on a basketball forums. :P

but a simple way of putting it might be like this- everything modern civilisation is doing is borrowing against the future, pushing back against the intrinsic mechanisms of nature which tend to have balancing effects on just about everything, including living populations. this pushes our standard of living higher and higher, but also pushes us towards critical masses on a number of fronts. and unfortunately, as many prior civilisations discovered, sometimes you don't even get to do a controlled demolition. sometimes you go from one reality you know and recognise to another far more harsh one just like that.

[rufuspaul]

now imagine if something similar happened during the period we're headed towards now- a hellish period of regular world draught, tornados, tsunamis, little if any freshwater left, and poisoned oceans.

As long as it's after primetime's great grand children are dead there's no need to worry.:rolleyes:

[-p.tiddy-]

What are you really saying that you dont care about the future of humanity? Once "everyone you know" is dead then who gives a **** what happens to earth and its inhabitants??


Anyway, sea level change is only a small part of the detrimental effects global climate change. Loss of species diversity, loss of glacier fed waterways, changes to ocean currents that drive weather patterns... these are the things that will seriously **** over the world, not rising water.
No I do care about the future of humanity...I promise

I think I made this thread more or less to point out that it doesn't look as though global warming will ever be an issue for me or anyone I will ever know.

I think some people have this idea in thier head that doom is right around the corner...but it isn't...it is centuries away...it will be a different world completely...technology will make us look like cave men by the time the ocean rise and temp are at a scary level.

[joe]

Global warming is real I just dont see any reason to be alarmed. Over a long period of time im sure many many massive climate changes will happen. The great lakes were created when the last ice age ended and the glaciers that covered much of north america began to melt. Im quite sure humanity didnt melt them....

The world has...totally without our input...been half covered in ice or been so hot we would die at the equator. The Sahara desert used to be a gotdamn rainforest. There are bones of hippos and fish under the sand. Deserts in asia used to be under water. So much of the world was frozen you could walk from new York to london without going to the north pole. The great salt lake used to cover all of Utah.

The world gets a lot hotter and cooler and the weather changes the world in major ways that we wont be able to do much of anything about it. Might as well stop bitching and see how it goes.

I believe we are technically still at the end of an ice age. We just dont know it because humanity rose during the end of it. But it takes so long we just consider this...what the world is supposed to be. the world doesnt stay what it is.

There used to be so much rainforest in the world that the oxygen in the air was such that insects could grow to 8-9 feet long. Giant scorpions and so on were all over the place. And other times it was so cold for so long that elephant like creatures(they were not really elephants) grew wool to stay warm.

Its the world. Its natural. Even if we accelerate the process(which im not sure is the case...some volcanoes can all on their own release enough shit into the air to cool the world by 2-3 degrees over a decade). The world isnt gonna do anything it has not done to itself many many many times. Some of it we will like and some of it we wont.

Frankly im happier about global warming than I would be about global cooling if it brings glaciers down to Ohio. I like polar bears and all. But I like chicago too...

Excellent post. The world may very well be warming, but humans have less to do with it than natural factors.

I think the human element is greatly exaggerated. There's a lot of money to be made by politicians, hyping up environmentalism. Environmentalists are being manipulated and they don't even know it.

[Riddler]

I think some people have this idea in thier head that doom is right around the corner...

http://www.webwallpapers.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2012-movie-posters-003-1024x819.jpg

[rufuspaul]

http://www.webwallpapers.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2012-movie-posters-003-1024x819.jpg


:oldlol:

Dooms, I've been meaning to ask you what you really feel about 2012. Is it the latest doom or do you think something else will happen?

[heyhey]

I did look into a couple super eruptions just now though....

One in the south pacific in 1815 cooled the world so much that 1816 was known as "The year without a summer". frost killed most of the crops in america in may. It was snowing in june and early july....

A gotdamn volcano the previous year made it snow in mid summer.

Nature owns us.




I just find humanity too resiliant a virus to even approach being cured by the weather.

aren't you making conflicting comments? you talked at length about human's arrogance in believing we affect the planet with our actions and you talked about how we live at the whim of the climate/nature etc.

then you talk about how humans are too resilient to be cured by the weather.

it seems like you are at one hand dismissing human's domain over the climate then at the same time dismissing nature/weather's control over us.

And I disagree with your assertion that climate change being some pet peeve of the first world. In fact it's the indigenous ppl, third world countries, that has/will suffer the most from extreme weather phenomenals, climate changes etc. The first world has the resources and infrastructure to shelter itself. but many indigenous groups has lost many of its traditions because the climate is no longer amenable.

[rufuspaul]

The first world has the resources and infrastructure to shelter itself. but many indigenous groups has lost many of its traditions because the climate is no longer amenable.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/climatememe.jpg

[RidonKs]

i think people underestimate the geopolitical effects of climate change. like heyheyhey! said, the conversation has very little to do with the imminent destruction of the earth. doomsday scenarios are the most interesting so there's a lot of analysts and pundits out there who focus on it to sell their books, but the academic world doesn't really pursue that topic to any great extent. it's about how people will react to a changing climate that won't effect every geography in anywhere near the same way.

the best phrasing i've heard to describe the future conflict, that i'm somewhat convinced is all but inevitable, was by Gwynne Dyer in his series (based on his book) Climate Wars. the most dangerous countries will be the ones that lie between your own and the equator. the scramble to the poles will be unbelievable and migration is going to become highly regulated once incentives to gtfo become high enough. it isn't like people in the tropics are going to be dying of heat stroke on the street. maybe in 200 years, but not in any immediate sense. it's food security that's the big deal, along with fresh water reserves. grain reserves have been in trouble for the last decade, not enough to bring the world to its knees, but enough to understand that the trends of, uhh, 'negative growability' (or something) in the tropics are a major cause of concern, and shit will only get worse. subsistence is already a problem in much of the third world, and the extent it could worsen is really scary.


the reason blaze argues that it's a first world problem is unbelievably short-sighted and surprising to see coming out of his mouth/fingers. the first world has the TIME and the ENERGY to commit to this problem, whereas the third world is still trying to attain basic levels of subsistence across the board. the long long term isn't as important as feeding the populace, which makes perfect sense from a political standpoint. it may seem like only the first world is focusing on the issue because mostly it is only the first world focusing on the issue. there are perfectly good explanations for that. and what's more, the entire world recognizes that the first-to-industrialize world are the primary sources for blame. in terms of greenhouse outputs, the third world with its relatively recent contributions just can't compete. in other words, it's our fault. lol

i still want to see deuce offer a more substantive response to a few of the objections raised by morons like ny and the rest. i'm almost convinced he's right, based on my own research, verification by people i tend to trust on academic matters (booze, 99% of climate scientists, peers, etc, etc), but there's still something to be said for specific counters to the specific objections being raised... retarded though they may be. i've followed countless climate threads along these lines and we never get more wisdom from mr wallace than one-line tidbits followed by the bitterest of insults. i know his response to this, look it up yourself asshole, i'm not your personal tutor. well, that's all well and good, but i'm speaking as a fan hoping to read more. maybe, just maybe, this will convince him to put his research on hold and prepare the long-awaited essay of a rebuttal that we've waited on for oh so long.

then again... prolly not.

[Kblaze8855]

aren't you making conflicting comments? you talked at length about human's arrogance in believing we affect the planet with our actions and you talked about how we live at the whim of the climate/nature etc.

then you talk about how humans are too resilient to be cured by the weather.

it seems like you are at one hand dismissing human's domain over the climate then at the same time dismissing nature/weather's control over us.

And I disagree with your assertion that climate change being some pet peeve of the first world. In fact it's the indigenous ppl, third world countries, that has/will suffer the most from extreme weather phenomenals, climate changes etc. The first world has the resources and infrastructure to shelter itself. but many indigenous groups has lost many of its traditions because the climate is no longer amenable.

I dont think it was in conflict at all. Nature does own us. It just isnt capable of much that could wipe us out. If the next ice age has glaciers march down and wipe out the top half of america....sure we get "owned" but we wouldnt die. Not like we wouldnt see them coming. something the size of Minnesota approaches at 50 feet a day people start to notice way before its even deep into canada. We would just get out of the way....that or try to blow it up and probably fail. Then get out of the way.

Short of a plague, space based disaster(asteriod or the sun burning our or releasing a huge solar flare) or perhaps enough lethal gases being vented from deep inside the earth I cant imagine anything nature could do to stop us. And those arent what id call weather issues.

Nature has and will likely always dominate us. But domination doesnt mean 7 billion of us die. It means we do what we must to live with the changes.

And you are right that the third world countries will suffer the most. But they wont go under either. Perhaps in a political fashion. But people have proven too capable of getting through disaster. In the end we are our own biggest threat.

Nature has rarely killed a million people at once. It has a couple times due to flooding in places where we have huge populations(almost always in asia). But humans kill ourselves at a far greater rate. And we do it on purpose.

[chips93]

really 5 cm isnt that much.


it is for a lot of countries near sea levels. also global warming makes rainfall more erratic, more flooding and more droughts in many cases. this is what a lot of people ignore. for countries like bangladesh, they are already suffering because of global warming, with flooding and millions of already poverty stricken families being forced to uproot and move to overcrowded cities.

there are enormous consequences for many people already, just not in america, or any wealthy countries westerners really care about.

[Kblaze8855]

They are suffering with global warming? And how could you know that? global warming is not the cause of...weather.

Floods were killing million of people before we started all this. A flood killed 4 million people at once in china a couple hundred years ago. floods have been killing in asia forever. They are packed up against water sources by the millions...in areas prone to flood during wet seasons...that also have earthquakes....and hurricanes...

Every year floods wipe out tens of thousands down there....and sometimes hundreds. Sometimes millions. Half of south asia is prone to flooding.

We didnt cause it. Its a perfect storm driven by overpopulation.

And it far predates what we consider global warming.

and just for trivas sake...

The third most deadly flood in human history was in china and it was on purpose. The chinese troops broke the levees in a few spots trying to flood their own country to prevent Japans troops from advancing. Killed like half a million people.

As usual...nature is harsh...but we are just as bad to ourselves or worse.

[-p.tiddy-]

yeah there is no way to prove that droughts and floods today are being caused by the 1/2 degree rise in the temp...

[gigantes]

re: resisting the effects of climate change,
i think this idea that the first world is in markedly superior shape compared to the third world is pretty weak, to say the least.

unless you've been living under a rock, you will have noticed by now that most 1st-world countries have severely over-leveraged their debt-to-GDP. cities, counties, and even whole states are already going bankrupt before our eyes. i don't think it will take much to push the whole situation over the edge, such as with this impending euro collapse. (if you want pessimism, ask any body of economists what the chances are of saving the euro)

and then what? how do you keep this whole system working when the world's second-largest currency has become worthless and the global banks have become paralysed? banks that are absolutely essential in our modern system for making just about everything run. who's going to be shipping you your food and consumables in the wake of that kind of situation? paying your salary? running your basic services, like electricity, water, gas, police, fire, municipal? how long are army and national guard units going to work for room and board trying to keep order in a ridiculously stressful and difficult situation before they break up into regional juntas?

these are just a few examples of why i think you're fooling yourself if you think the first world is that much better off than the third world. because that thinking presupposes that the level of power and supply that we enjoy now will maintain in the face of the kinds of collapses we're facing.

then throw in the effects of climate change -here and now- (not in some distant future) and it only makes the situation that much worse. just one example of many:
[quote]Billion-dollar weather disasters smash US record

Dec 7, 2011, WASHINGTON (AP)

[KeylessEntry]

the best phrasing i've heard to describe the future conflict, that i'm somewhat convinced is all but inevitable, was by Gwynne Dyer in his series (based on his book) Climate Wars. the most dangerous countries will be the ones that lie between your own and the equator. the scramble to the poles will be unbelievable and migration is going to become highly regulated once incentives to gtfo become high enough. it isn't like people in the tropics are going to be dying of heat stroke on the street. maybe in 200 years, but not in any immediate sense. it's food security that's the big deal, along with fresh water reserves. grain reserves have been in trouble for the last decade, not enough to bring the world to its knees, but enough to understand that the trends of, uhh, 'negative growability' (or something) in the tropics are a major cause of concern, and shit will only get worse. subsistence is already a problem in much of the third world, and the extent it could worsen is really scary.



I saw a great documentary on this topic recently. There are billions of people in India, China, Pakistan and the rest of SE asia that rely on himalayan glaciers for drinking and irrigation water. Those glaciers will continue to disappear and water will continue to become more and more scarce while population continues to explode, eventually somethings gotta give.

We are also going to see some serious shit go down at home along the US-Mexico border as central america continues to dry out and heat up. Its going to be really interesting when the US government tries to actually shut down the border, especially considering that such a large percentage of US citizens have some sort of hispanic background and will likely be strongly opposed to a real border lockdown.

[chips93]

yeah there is no way to prove that droughts and floods today are being caused by the 1/2 degree rise in the temp...

well of course there is no way to prove beyond doubt, but if there is a correlation, between more erratic rainfall all over the world and the rising temperature, and logically, it makes sense, that if you alter the weather systems as we have, then its fair to come to the conclusion that there is a big connection between the two.

[-p.tiddy-]

well of course there is no way to prove beyond doubt, but if there is a correlation, between more erratic rainfall all over the world and the rising temperature, and logically, it makes sense, that if you alter the weather systems as we have, then its fair to come to the conclusion that there is a big connection between the two.
do you have anything to show how much flooding and droughts have increased?

those are issues that humans have had to deal with since our existence...

[chips93]

Rainfall in the unique "wet desert" of India's northeast has become unpredictable and the dry season longer in a disturbing sign of major changes in global weather patterns, scientists say. Cherrapunji, in northeast India's tiny Meghalaya state, has long been a top contender for the world's wettest spot, with approximately 12 metres (40 feet) of rainfall annually, most of it in the summer monsoon season.

But a group of Polish and Indian scientists who have been studying the unusual ecosystem -- it falls on a latitude known for some of the world's driest areas, including the Sahara and Gobi deserts -- said that was changing.

Rainfall steadily lessened in the last half of the 20th century, they said.

At the same time, fluctuations increased, meaning the wet years were frequently wetter and the dry years dryer.

- http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Wet_Desert_Of_India_Drying_Out_999.html

[Kblaze8855]

How is a monetary measure of weather damage even telling?

More than 1000 people got killed?

That wouldnt even register in any other time in american history. especially counting all the shit they count.

Wildfires? There were two in one week in 1871 that killed more people on their own than the 1000+ that article claims died in all weather related disasters in America last year.

And just by chance it was the same time of the great chicago fire which adjusted for inflation did 40 billion dollars in damage. not sure if you want to even count it but considering it was one of 3 major fires going on at one time....if you are gonna count wildfires as your article did im not sure how we wouldnt count that. clearly weather played a factor somehow. Perhaps if it rained at the right time.....

Man may have started some of them but....man starts most wildfires.

[KeylessEntry]

One of the ironies of climate change is that the areas within the US that will be hit hardest are basically the areas where all the climate change skeptics live. Texas, Arizona, Florida, the South.... I cant wait to see what these people think about climate change when there are literally millions of thirsty/starving people crossing the border from mexico each year.

[DeuceWallaces]

Excellent post. The world may very well be warming, but humans have less to do with it than natural factors.

I think the human element is greatly exaggerated. There's a lot of money to be made by politicians, hyping up environmentalism. Environmentalists are being manipulated and they don't even know it.
Man this thread is a sea of the uninformed and blowhards going back and forth with each other.

1) The world is warming/changing and we have everything to do with it. There is very little scientific debate about that.

2) The IPCC is a politically appointed organization, but they utilize only

[Kblaze8855]

There are few climate change skeptics. How many people just....dont think the climate changes?

It was 65 degrees a couple days ago here. Id have killed for this weather in January when I was a kid.

I dont deny it exists. I simply dont care. And I dont think that given what we know of world history....and what people have gone through...that we can say for sure that we are responsible for the changes or that we have the power to prevent it. And either way...I have no fear that we wont make it through.

Blobal warming is obvious. Ice used to cover half of america. I just dont fully blame us for it when it started before we had any ability to impact it and the world has with no input from us been half frozen or burning hot.

I dont think we are as big a factor as some seem to suggest and I find most of the evidence otherwise to be kinda alarmist and disregarding all the awful things that have been happening all through history that had nothing to do with us.

People are ready to blame global warming for floods, fire, wind, and blizzards, and heat waves....

Global warming has become to many people...just....weather.

That...I do no find reasonable.

[-p.tiddy-]

longest post in the history or DueceWallace...longer than all of his other 14,000+ posts combined

[rufuspaul]

4) You are also all out in the cold

Not for long.:D




White Nose Bat Syndrome.

I think I actually suffer from this.

[RidonKs]

I think I actually suffer from this.
that's Old Bat Syndrome.



great post deuce, love the insiders insight. the harmonious reproductive cycles in particular boggles my mind and also scares shit right out my pooper.

[joe]

We haven't been keeping weather records long enough to know mans effect on temperatures. This isn't fossils, you can't dig up the weather records and know what was going on.

It's proven that government environmentalist mongers are highly "selective" with what information they make public. Google about how they buried studies that didn't agree with their pre-decided conclusions.

Scientists do not universally agree with global warming. That again is more propoganda.

Here's a petition that was circulated among scientists, to sign if they don't believe in wikipedia. 31 thousand scientists, including 9,000 with PHD's, signed it.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here's a list of scientists who don't believe in global warming, from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

And whether or not you buy these sources (I have my questions about some of it, but there's probably some truth in there), the fact is, there are plenty of scientists who don't believe in global warming. Look and you shall see. But look with your eyes fully open.. not just looking for what they want to see.

[DeuceWallaces]

We haven't been keeping weather records long enough to know mans effect on temperatures. This isn't fossils, you can't dig up the weather records and know what was going on.


http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here's a list of scientists who don't believe in global warming, from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

And whether or not you buy these sources (I have my questions about some of it, but there's probably some truth in there), the fact is, there are plenty of scientists who don't believe in global warming. Look and you shall see. But look with your eyes fully open.. not just looking for what they want to see.

Lol at the list of "scientists" any yahoo can sign. And yes, this is fossils, that's exactly what they do; ya dolt.

[Flagrant 2]

Since 1980 my d!ck has gone up about 5 cm

[joe]

Lol at the list of "scientists" any yahoo can sign. And yes, this is fossils, that's exactly what they do; ya dolt.

The petition was circulated through the mail to scientists. It's not an online petition.

Detailed records of temperature only stretch back to 1850's. Everything before that is patchwork done with tree rings and leaf edges. That is not 100% reliable, definitely not as reliable as the records of the last 160 years. And even if they were, how far back does that go? 100 million years? Well, the earth is much older than that. The solar system is much older than that. What were the temperatures 500 million years ago on earth?

I'm not against taking care of the environment at all, on a personal level. I might even be okay to have a few laws to protect the environment, outside of the regular property rights. But environmentalists have infiltrated politics and are passing crazy laws/regulations, without total proof to back up their claims. Their dogma needs to be addressed.

[KeylessEntry]

The petition was circulated through the mail to scientists. It's not an online petition.

Detailed records of temperature only stretch back to 1850's. Everything before that is patchwork done with tree rings and leaf edges. That is not 100% reliable, definitely not as reliable as the records of the last 160 years. And even if they were, how far back does that go? 100 million years? Well, the earth is much older than that. The solar system is much older than that. What were the temperatures 500 million years ago on earth?

I'm not against taking care of the environment at all, on a personal level. I might even be okay to have a few laws to protect the environment, outside of the regular property rights. But environmentalists have infiltrated politics and are passing crazy laws/regulations, without total proof to back up their claims. Their dogma needs to be addressed.

There were hardly plants on land 500 million years ago, the world was a very different place then. Tell me exactly what crazy laws/regulations these environmentalists have passed without proof to backup their claims.


I am curious to know how many college level science classes all the climate change skeptics in this thread have taken in the past. As far as I can tell, the only person who has any scientific background whatsoever is hawker, and he is not so much a skeptic so much as he just doesnt give a **** because he is getting paid.

[DeuceWallaces]

The petition was circulated through the mail to scientists. It's not an online petition.

Detailed records of temperature only stretch back to 1850's. Everything before that is patchwork done with tree rings and leaf edges. That is not 100% reliable, definitely not as reliable as the records of the last 160 years. And even if they were, how far back does that go? 100 million years? Well, the earth is much older than that. The solar system is much older than that. What were the temperatures 500 million years ago on earth?

I'm not against taking care of the environment at all, on a personal level. I might even be okay to have a few laws to protect the environment, outside of the regular property rights. But environmentalists have infiltrated politics and are passing crazy laws/regulations, without total proof to back up their claims. Their dogma needs to be addressed.

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. This isn't your topic.

EDIT: That website is hilarious. Are you retarded? Seriously? You're dumber than you sound.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

That moron can barely write the word physics, but he has a phd in one? 34 thousand joe's sent out for a petition on a website to say they're scientists and oppose to global warming.

[gigantes]

The only question is how severe the consequences will be, which are what scientists, like myself, are currently working on.
the problem with you scientists is that when you come up with breakthroughs, commerce will seize on those to form new money-making technologies without the slightest thought towards long-term consequences, but when you guys DO get together to provide some kind of warning via agencies such as the IPCC (which is very rare), most sectors of business, politic and citizen-base are at liberty to completely ignore you.

in short, nobody really cares what you say, only what you can offer, which they'll use however they like regardless of your ideals or thoughts on the matter.

along with this tendency, civilisation keeps falling in to the flawed group-think that the problems caused by irresponsibly-used technologies can be miraculously cleaned up by the new technologies coming down the pike. yea... pick any date in history up til now and let me know how that worked out for you.

as gwynne dyer pointed out years ago, sometime soon many governments are going to feel forced to send light-blocking particulate matter in to the atmosphere in order to balance the effects of runaway greenhouse effect. and then what? we'll have a situation in which many govts are willing to do absolutely anything at all to lessen climate change versus many others (like canada, northern europe and northern russia) who are quite content (read: profitable) with the situation as it is. versus those in the middle, such as the northern US states, of course.

so, sending the particulate matter up will quite literally be a matter of life and death for countries with completely opposite agendas on the issue. siberia will be quite content to let texas fry, for example, which is already what it started to do in the summer of 2011.

and nuclear weapons? you think any country which finds its very survival threatened will be afraid to use them?

[joe]

There were hardly plants on land 500 million years ago, the world was a very different place then. Tell me exactly what crazy laws/regulations these environmentalists have passed without proof to backup their claims.


I am curious to know how many college level science classes all the climate change skeptics in this thread have taken in the past. As far as I can tell, the only person who has any scientific background whatsoever is hawker, and he is not so much a skeptic so much as he just doesnt give a **** because he is getting paid.

The key phrase to what you said is "without proof." There may very well be proof of something, the question is, what do we do about it? For instance, there was proof that DDT was harmful to animals, the environment, and to humans. So we've banned it. But what about the positives of it? What about the negative effects of banning it?

More importantly, what about the people who disagreed with/didn't care about the negative effects of DDT? They don't have a say, they're just forced to go along with these laws. I think Rand Paul does a good job of explaining this mindset in this (short) video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0cJc3VEh94&feature=related

Basically.. why can't environmentalists try to pursuade us, with facts and reason? Instead they just bully their opinions down on throat.

If you want some laws/regulations that have to do with the environment, just go to this site and search around:

http://www.epa.gov/

Have you heard about the ban on incandescent light bulbs? I've heard this ban may have been lifted now, not 100% sure. But this is an example of what I'm talking about. These light bulbs may not be as pure as trees and soil, but people liked them and they weren't THAT bad for the environment. There's even arguments that the alternatives are worse for the environment. But we were (maybe still are, not sure) going to be forced to use less desirable light bulbs because some government bureaucrats think we should. It's not right.

I have taken some college level science courses, but nothing relating to the environment specifically. Yet I really don't see why that should matter at all. College students are taught a bunch of stupid crap. I know I was.

[KeylessEntry]

The key phrase to what you said is "without proof." There may very well be proof of something, the question is, what do we do about it? For instance, there was proof that DDT was harmful to animals, the environment, and to humans. So we've banned it. But what about the positives of it? What about the negative effects of banning it?

More importantly, what about the people who disagreed with/didn't care about the negative effects of DDT? They don't have a say, they're just forced to go along with these laws. I think Rand Paul does a good job of explaining this mindset in this (short) video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0cJc3VEh94&feature=related

Basically.. why can't environmentalists try to pursuade us, with facts and reason? Instead they just bully their opinions down on throat.


Environmentalists do try to persuade you with facts and reason. The facts and reason are simply ignored. Look at how many climate skeptics also deny evolution. Like climate science, evolution is backed by a ****ing mountain of evidence, but for some reason certain people have no problem dismissing it all as propaganda and then claiming there is no evidence.

Are you really saying it is a bad thing that we force people not to use harmful chemicals like DDT even if they "dont agree/dont care" about the negative effects?



If you want some laws/regulations that have to do with the environment, just go to this site and search around:

http://www.epa.gov/


Right now I make a living doing environmental modelling, planning and restoration. I am familiar with most environmental laws and regulations. Now, I want you to tell me exactly which laws have been passed without proof, like you claimed in your earlier post.



Have you heard about the ban on incandescent light bulbs? I've heard this ban may have been lifted now, not 100% sure. But this is an example of what I'm talking about. These light bulbs may not be as pure as trees and soil, but people liked them and they weren't THAT bad for the environment. There's even arguments that the alternatives are worse for the environment. But we were (maybe still are, not sure) going to be forced to use less desirable light bulbs because some government bureaucrats think we should. It's not right.


Stupid government bureaucrats always passing laws that prevent you from using old, wasteful, pointless technology. I agree they are douche bags for encroaching upon our freedom to waste energy and resources, its the american way after all.



I have taken some college level science courses, but nothing relating to the environment specifically. Yet I really don't see why that should matter at all. College students are taught a bunch of stupid crap. I know I was.

I dunno where you went to college, but I know in my biology, physics and chemistry classes I learned a lot of good stuff about the environment, definitely not "a bunch of stupid crap." I think it matters because science and the environment are complicated subjects and when you try to dismiss them without any sort of actual scientific knowledge you sound like a dumbass (examples include yourself, primetime, nick young... etc)

[joe]

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop. This isn't your topic.

EDIT: That website is hilarious. Are you retarded? Seriously? You're dumber than you sound.

That moron can barely write the word physics, but he has a phd in one? 34 thousand joe's sent out for a petition on a website to say they're scientists and oppose to global warming.

You can't even spell "opposed," but you're insulting someones handwriting? I know it was a type-o on your part, but that's about how ridiculous your criticism is of my source.

However, that petiton isn't the best resource indeed. But just look at the polls on more reputable sites. Like this one:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/19/climategate-copenhagen-science-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

A majority do believe in human-induced warming, yes. I don't deny that. But there's no consensus. 84% is not a consensus. And I've seen lower estimates.

And even those who DO think humans cause global warming, vary in how serious they think the problem is. Some think it won't have much of an effect on us in the long run. Others think it will be catastrophic.

And to get to the root of the problem, much of this is based on incomplete data. Again... there's no way of being 100% sure about the earth's climate once you go back far enough. It's like believing that we really know everything about Ancient Egypt. Sure, we're able to paint a pretty nice picture. But we're undoubtedly missing facts. Didn't scientists just figure out that some raptors had feathers? But you trust that they know the exact temperaure, within just a few degrees, of the Earth 5 million years ago? Give me a break.

[joe]

Are you really saying it is a bad thing that we force people not to use harmful chemicals like DDT even if they "dont agree/dont care" about the negative effects?

The negative effects to whom? If they are effecting other people that is a problem. If DDT is getting into my drinking water that is a problem. But if it's killing some random species of owl, but on the flip side I don't have mosquitos killing me in my sleep.. then yes I do think it's a bad thing to ban it.


Right now I make a living doing environmental modelling, planning and restoration. I am familiar with most environmental laws and regulations. Now, I want you to tell me exactly which laws have been passed without proof, like you claimed in your earlier post.

I never said there was no proof, the point is.. what is proven? And what is the trade off? If a chemical is killing a certain species of animal.. but is really helpful for humans in some way, should we ban it? You can prove that it's bad for animals all you want, so yes, you have your proof. But you can't ignore the trade off between protecting the environment and promoting human growth.

Have you heard about the keystone pipeline being blocked? This would've created untold jobs and been a huge boom for our economy. But now it likely won't be built here because "concerns it could pollute air and water, and hurt certain animal populations." We already have property rights to deal with our air and water. And as far as animal populations, again... it's a trade off. Humans or animal prosperity, hmm, which side am I on?


Stupid government bureaucrats always passing laws that prevent you from using old, wasteful, pointless technology. I agree they are douche bags for encroaching upon our freedom to waste energy and resources, its the american way after all.

What do you know? So you know what is wasteful and pointless.. not millions upon millions of people buying the product? You know what's a waste of energy and resources, and everybody else is just dumb? Typical central planner attitude. Your arrogance will be your downfall, mi amigo.


I dunno where you went to college, but I know in my biology, physics and chemistry classes I learned a lot of good stuff about the environment, definitely not "a bunch of stupid crap." I think it matters because science and the environment are complicated subjects and when you try to dismiss them without any sort of actual scientific knowledge you sound like a dumbass (examples include yourself, primetime, nick young... etc)

I learned a lot of good stuff in college too. And a lot of crap. You've got to weed out the good from the bad. My sociology teacher was my favorite teacher ever... and also an admitted marxist. College is a very liberal leaning place and you seem to have come out as they intended you to. Do you honestly support all of the EPA regulations? You honestly know every environmental law on the books but don't think any of them were passed for shaky reasons?

[KeylessEntry]

The negative effects to whom? If they are effecting other people that is a problem. If DDT is getting into my drinking water that is a problem. But if it's killing some random species of owl, but on the flip side I don't have mosquitos killing me in my sleep.. then yes I do think it's a bad thing to ban it.


Some random species of owl shouldnt have to go extinct so that mosquitos dont kill you during your precious sleep. Move out of the swamp or get a mosquito net or something.



I never said there was no proof, the point is.. what is proven? And what is the trade off? If a chemical is killing a certain species of animal.. but is really helpful for humans in some way, should we ban it? You can prove that it's bad for animals all you want, so yes, you have your proof. But you can't ignore the trade off between protecting the environment and promoting human growth.

Have you heard about the keystone pipeline being blocked? This would've created untold jobs and been a huge boom for our economy. But now it likely won't be built here because "concerns it could pollute air and water, and hurt certain animal populations." We already have property rights to deal with our air and water. And as far as animal populations, again... it's a trade off. Humans or animal prosperity, hmm, which side am I on?


You fail to see how closely human growth and prosperity is closely linked to natural processes. For example, if honeybees continue to decline there are going to be a lot of hungry people. If we continue to shit all over the environment, eventually there wont be anything left to sustain us. It is a lot easier to destroy than it is to restore.



What do you know? So you know what is wasteful and pointless.. not millions upon millions of people buying the product? You know what's a waste of energy and resources, and everybody else is just dumb? Typical central planner attitude. Your arrogance will be your downfall, mi amigo.

It is a FACT that the old bulbs use more energy, it is a FACT that the old bulbs burn out faster. Thats not my opinion, thats just how it is. Go test the bulbs yourself if you dont believe me. I personally dont think you should be banned from owning the bulbs, I just dont know why anybody would want to own them. People should have the right to waste energy and resources if they really want to and it is not directly harming anybody else.



I learned a lot of good stuff in college too. And a lot of crap. You've got to weed out the good from the bad. My sociology teacher was my favorite teacher ever... and also an admitted marxist. College is a very liberal leaning place and you seem to have come out as they intended you to. Do you honestly support all of the EPA regulations? You honestly know every environmental law on the books but don't think any of them were passed for shaky reasons?

I dont support all EPA regulations. Off the top of my head, I think their fuel economy regulations are kind of dumb. I never claimed to know every environmental law in the books, I said i am familiar with most of them. By the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me which laws where passed without total proof. Additionally, I dont think we need total proof. If we **** up the world we arent going to get another shot, better to be safe than sorry when it comes to spraying crazy chemicals all over our giant organic spaceship.

[rivers to gates]

Climate Science is corrupted just like everything else. These scientist don't know what is going to happen. The freakin' weather models can barely predict the weather tomorrow but they know GW is a huge problem? Climate Science has become the bible/god of the left wing party.

[rivers to gates]

Let's have a look at what one NASA Climate Scientist was saying back in the 2007 shall we?

[QUOTE]Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer

[rivers to gates]

[quote]Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world

[joe]

Some random species of owl shouldnt have to go extinct so that mosquitos dont kill you during your precious sleep. Move out of the swamp or get a mosquito net or something.

Why are we sacrificing the quality of human life to save owls? I love owls, and I can't even kill bugs sometimes because of my damn conscience. But we need to get our priorities straight when it comes to political decisions. My entire county was infested with bed bugs the last few years, and the state of New York has admitted that the ban of certain farming chemicals was partly responsible for the outbreak. How much money do you think that cost? How much time wasted? I had a friend who paid almost 1,000 bucks to get his apartment sprayed. If that can be avoided it should be.

We just missed out on the keystone pipeline.. to save some animals. There were also air/water concerns, but that could have been addressed through private property rights, in conjunction with emission standards that are already on the books.

So this really comes down to environmentalists having too much sway in our governments decisions. Everybody has a cause.. it doesn't mean you should be able to force others to do as you say through the feds.



You fail to see how closely human growth and prosperity is closely linked to natural processes. For example, if honeybees continue to decline there are going to be a lot of hungry people. If we continue to shit all over the environment, eventually there wont be anything left to sustain us. It is a lot easier to destroy than it is to restore.

How do you know what technologies will be available in the future? Idk about the honeybee situation, feel free to enlighten me by all means. But in general, I believe in the ingenuity of human beings. Since I'm not informed about honeybees, I'll use oil as an example. People freak out because we might soon run out of oil. I don't freak out at all, because I know people will find another energy source. We aren't just going to slide back into the dark ages because our current technology is no longer applicable.

There are those who want government to subsidize green energy, because of this supposed "energy crisis" we will soon face. Why not just let the market figure it out? If we really had a shortage of energy, prices would skyrocket. People would be looking for the next best thing. That's when we'll see real, private investment into green energy. Or into some other form of energy. Point is, human beings will figure it out. We are smart. Give us credit.


It is a FACT that the old bulbs use more energy, it is a FACT that the old bulbs burn out faster. Thats not my opinion, thats just how it is. Go test the bulbs yourself if you dont believe me. I personally dont think you should be banned from owning the bulbs, I just dont know why anybody would want to own them. People should have the right to waste energy and resources if they really want to and it is not directly harming anybody else.

Totally agree. I don't think I claimed incandescent light bulbs used less energy, and I'm sure you're right.. they probably do. But I'm with you in that people should have the choice to use the products they want to, as long as they aren't directly harming anybody else.


I dont support all EPA regulations. Off the top of my head, I think their fuel economy regulations are kind of dumb. I never claimed to know every environmental law in the books, I said i am familiar with most of them. By the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me which laws where passed without total proof. Additionally, I dont think we need total proof. If we **** up the world we arent going to get another shot, better to be safe than sorry when it comes to spraying crazy chemicals all over our giant organic spaceship.

Like I said before, the light bulbs are a great example of a law passed without total proof. But this treads on strange ground and I hope you give me a chance to explain myself here. Yes.. they have "proof" that incandescants take extra energy. But they haven't proved that we need to conserve energy to begin with. Their conclusions are spawned from a completely biased and one-sided starting point. It's mere scare tactics, talking about a day when we run out of energy. They discount the fact that, just maybe, humans will find a new energy source when that happens.

It's like in "Back to the future," they thought the year 2010 or whatever would have flying skateboards. Point being.. nobody can predict the future. So trying to save us from a crisis that may be solved by the time it comes, is silly. And that's without talking about the way these regulations stifle business and hurt the consumer.

Further, they haven't proved that incandescent bulbs are worse than the alternatives. Alternative bulbs have higher degrees of mercury which is bad for the environment. So will the environment really be better off?

You said earlier that science is a very complicated subject. I agree. But so is economics. When central planners/regulators make decisions like this, they have no means of predicting the unintended consequences. That is why their central plans fail.

[rivers to gates]

IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save

[QUOTE]BY NATIONAL POST NOVEMBER 13, 2007 COMMENTS (1)


Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

[joe]

I was just reading about environmental change, and I came across an interesting reader comment. I'd like to pose it to people who really think global warming is a catastrophe:


One other point. These articles go on about science. For me Karl Popper gave us a test about what constitutes a scientific statement; it has to be capable of being refuted. There seems to be a growing trend among warmists to say that if the earth gets cooler in the next ten years it will nevertheless not demonstrate that they are wrong. So there is a question of just what turn of events would prove them wrong. Any answers?

Just interested to hear your resonses.

Like I said before.. I'm not against caring for the environment. But I don't think it should be done by government force. Pursuade people of your point, don't force it on them. I'm certainly willing to listen to any solid, rational arguments. No crazy projections of the earth burning down in 10 years. We heard that 10 years ago..

[brantonli]

Why do we give a crap if anthropocentric global warming is real? Personally I think it is. But even if it isn't, then efforts to prevent it will lead to more renewable energy, and less carbon-emitting cars on the road. I honestly don't see why there's such a massive debate. Fine, if it is true, then great, somehow we slow it down and become more environmentally friendly. If it isn't true, then we become more environmentally friendly ANYWAY. Why is that such a bad thing?

[joe]

Why do we give a crap if anthropocentric global warming is real? Personally I think it is. But even if it isn't, then efforts to prevent it will lead to more renewable energy, and less carbon-emitting cars on the road. I honestly don't see why there's such a massive debate. Fine, if it is true, then great, somehow we slow it down and become more environmentally friendly. If it isn't true, then we become more environmentally friendly ANYWAY. Why is that such a bad thing?

Standard of living, human progress, economic concerns..

We can't have the cars we want, we have weak washers and dryers, our house is infested with bedbugs, weak lighting from lesser lightbulbs, jobs destroyed through regulations, taxpayer money wasted on environmental subsidies, the progress of human technology being overall pushed backwards

People dying of preventable diseases: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Huge wealth and job creating projects shut down:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/11/11/a-burgeoning-climate-movement-stops-an-oil-sands-pipeline-now-they-need-to-start-something/

Psychological, moral..

Not letting fear mongers run our lives, putting humans above animals in the grand scheme of things, not allowing biased people to steer our government, not giving our government the power to tell us what we can and can not use in our homes, not allowing unchecked, armed regulatory bodies to force people to listen to them.. or else

[Kblaze8855]

Biased people will always steer our government anyway. People wont vote for politicians in the middle. But the middle is where the truth usually is. you have to be all in one way or the other.

And ill say this...those who believe in and fear global warming are usually much more informed than those who consider it a myth or nothing to worry about.

That doesnt mean they are right. But its what ive noticed. I guess the fear can create concern enough to look deeper.

[joe]

Biased people will always steer our government anyway. People wont vote for politicians in the middle. But the middle is where the truth usually is. you have to be all in one way or the other.

And ill say this...those who believe in and fear global warming are usually much more informed than those who consider it a myth or nothing to worry about.

That doesnt mean they are right. But its what ive noticed. I guess the fear can create concern enough to look deeper.

I dig what you're saying to an extent. But it goes both ways..

Those who fear global warming are more informed about global warming, than those who deny it exists. But a lot of them are completely clueless about how over regulation affects the economy. Or, that's not as "cool" of an approach to take.

You can't even say "over regulation" to these people, because they think our economic problems have to do with deregulation. They applaud any government law that protects the environment, regardless of the expense to business. While I really believe that the free market is the answer to our problems, environmental issues are an area that I could understand the need for some government oversight. But we're way over that cliff.

So maybe you're right, the answer is somewhere in the middle. But I'm seeing a lot of take and very little give when I have these conversations with environmentalists. Maybe I am guilty of that too and should look into my own behavior and beliefs.

Edit - And the caveat is that I'm speaking in very broad terms and not everyone can be painted with one brush. Nobody get offended.

[brantonli]

Standard of living, human progress, economic concerns..

We can't have the cars we want, we have weak washers and dryers, our house is infested with bedbugs, weak lighting from lesser lightbulbs, jobs destroyed through regulations, taxpayer money wasted on environmental subsidies, the progress of human technology being overall pushed backwards

People dying of preventable diseases: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Huge wealth and job creating projects shut down:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/11/11/a-burgeoning-climate-movement-stops-an-oil-sands-pipeline-now-they-need-to-start-something/

Psychological, moral..

Not letting fear mongers run our lives, putting humans above animals in the grand scheme of things, not allowing biased people to steer our government, not giving our government the power to tell us what we can and can not use in our homes, not allowing unchecked, armed regulatory bodies to force people to listen to them.. or else

Have you ever come across the idea of a common good? Something that nobody owns, and everybody can use, and therefore it becomes overexploited? That's what the environment, indeed planet Earth, is.

At the risk of sounding almost communist (or Hot Fuzz), we do have to think of the greater good. The social good.

But I've got to say, you don't actually believe what you wrote about 'weaker dryes, weaker lights' right? Because you can get the same amount of light for far less energy (not sure about washers and dryers though).

I'm very interested in why you so firmly steadfast for the free market, have you studied economics before?

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]
There is no debate that it

[Jailblazers7]

Have you ever come across the idea of a common good? Something that nobody owns, and everybody can use, and therefore it becomes overexploited? That's what the environment, indeed planet Earth, is.

At the risk of sounding almost communist (or Hot Fuzz), we do have to think of the greater good. The social good.

But I've got to say, you don't actually believe what you wrote about 'weaker dryes, weaker lights' right? Because you can get the same amount of light for far less energy (not sure about washers and dryers though).

I'm very interested in why you so firmly steadfast for the free market, have you studied economics before?

Yeah, the reason markets can't account for environmental concerns is because it almost impossible to grant property right to things like air and water. Therre is the example of English fishing rights where people are granted property rights for the fish in their part of the stream/river and that has been shown to curb and regulate water pollution but that's the only case I'm familiar with.

I'm not sure why you (directed at joe) assume environmenal concerns push back technological innovation. I would imagine it is the opposite where these concerns spur innovations in cleaner/cheaper energy and more efficient use of resources.

[KeylessEntry]

Why are we sacrificing the quality of human life to save owls? I love owls, and I can't even kill bugs sometimes because of my damn conscience. But we need to get our priorities straight when it comes to political decisions. My entire county was infested with bed bugs the last few years, and the state of New York has admitted that the ban of certain farming chemicals was partly responsible for the outbreak. How much money do you think that cost? How much time wasted? I had a friend who paid almost 1,000 bucks to get his apartment sprayed. If that can be avoided it should be.

We just missed out on the keystone pipeline.. to save some animals. There were also air/water concerns, but that could have been addressed through private property rights, in conjunction with emission standards that are already on the books.

So this really comes down to environmentalists having too much sway in our governments decisions. Everybody has a cause.. it doesn't mean you should be able to force others to do as you say through the feds.


This whole "force others to do as you say through the feds" is a two way street. Environmentalists dont always get their way, often they are forced to sit back and watch as an animal species or a forest or lake disappears.



How do you know what technologies will be available in the future? Idk about the honeybee situation, feel free to enlighten me by all means. But in general, I believe in the ingenuity of human beings. Since I'm not informed about honeybees, I'll use oil as an example. People freak out because we might soon run out of oil. I don't freak out at all, because I know people will find another energy source. We aren't just going to slide back into the dark ages because our current technology is no longer applicable.

There are those who want government to subsidize green energy, because of this supposed "energy crisis" we will soon face. Why not just let the market figure it out? If we really had a shortage of energy, prices would skyrocket. People would be looking for the next best thing. That's when we'll see real, private investment into green energy. Or into some other form of energy. Point is, human beings will figure it out. We are smart. Give us credit.


The government subsidizes the energy industry, the corn industry, the sugar industry, the defense industry... I could go on. Why shouldnt they be subsidizing green industry if they are going to subsidize all this other crap?

You should google the honeybee decline, its pretty scary. Somewhere around 90% of crops in the US are pollinated by honeybees.



It's like in "Back to the future," they thought the year 2010 or whatever would have flying skateboards. Point being.. nobody can predict the future. So trying to save us from a crisis that may be solved by the time it comes, is silly. And that's without talking about the way these regulations stifle business and hurt the consumer.


I think it is very unwise to just ignore all of our environmental issues because some new magic technology will eventually come and save us from ourselves. Like I said before, its much easier to destroy the environment then it is to restore it.

[rivers to gates]

why are you so upset?...he did absolutely nothing to you for you to be so insulting

"Scientists like yourself"?...do you have any idea how difficult it is to take you seriously as a scientist when your posts are all littered with childish insults ON A ****ING BASKETBALL FORUM!!???

this isn't globalwarmingforums.com genius...you are acting all super upset and offended that someone proposed something that goes against what you think on a sports forum...

seriously dude where does all this pent up hatred come from?...go see a head doc or something, fix that shit


*waits for an off topic rant about alcoholism and strippers

That's the way self-righteous left wing hipsters act.

[DeuceWallaces]

why are you so upset?...he did absolutely nothing to you for you to be so insulting

"Scientists like yourself"?...do you have any idea how difficult it is to take you seriously as a scientist when your posts are all littered with childish insults ON A ****ING BASKETBALL FORUM!!???

this isn't globalwarmingforums.com genius...you are acting all super upset and offended that someone proposed something that goes against what you think on a sports forum...

seriously dude where does all this pent up hatred come from?...go see a head doc or something, fix that shit


*waits for an off topic rant about alcoholism and strippers

Obviously you can't handle me; maybe you should just ignore my posts. Maybe you need a head doc yourself because 1) you obviously misread what he and or I said and 2) you love to follow me around and call me "mean" and say I'm angry because you're too dumb to know that everything he said was blatantly wrong and not subject to opinion.

That's not hatred, that's correcting the misinformed. He rattled off about 4 of the most ignorant posts in a row I've ever seen. Nothing that I ridiculed him for was a matter of opinion. Just making sure someone out there isn't believing any of the stupid shit he is saying, specifically environmental geology or political influence of scientists (which is non-existent).

And I know what type of forum this is genius. One where hundreds of thousands of people are reading this idiots thoughts on the environment. So I took 5 minutes out of my day, you know from my real job, where I write papers that are published and travel around to conferences to speak on this very topic, to point out where he was wrong.

Stop worrying so much about my tone and find something else to do with your time.

[rufuspaul]

Obviously you can't handle me; maybe you should just ignore my posts. Maybe you need a head doc yourself because 1) you obviously misread what he and or I said and 2) you love to follow me around and call me "mean" and say I'm angry because you're too dumb to know that everything he said was blatantly wrong and not subject to opinion.

That's not hatred, that's correcting the misinformed. He rattled off about 4 of the most ignorant posts in a row I've ever seen. Nothing that I ridiculed him for was a matter of opinion. Just making sure someone out there isn't believing any of the stupid shit he is saying, specifically environmental geology or political influence of scientists (which is non-existent).

And I know what type of forum this is genius. One where hundreds of thousands of people are reading this idiots thoughts on the environment. So I took 5 minutes out of my day, you know from my real job, where I write papers that are published and travel around to conferences to speak on this very topic, to point out where he was wrong.

Stop worrying so much about my tone and find something else to do with your time.

-1. You didn't mention strippers or alcohol. Unless you wrote this from a tittie bar, drunk.

[-p.tiddy-]

And I know what type of forum this is genius. One where hundreds of thousands of people are reading this idiots thoughts on the environment.
are you fcking kidding me? you think "HUNREDS OF THOUSANDS" of people are reading this?

:wtf:

try more like "one hundred"...if Joe is lucky 100 people read his post...most of that hundred being the regs in here

we aren't celerity writers in here...if you think his posts are altering the minds of millions then...wow you misjudged this place

how can we take your scientific judgments on the enviornment seriously when you aren't even capable of judging the attention these posts get?

So I took 5 minutes out of my day, you know from my real job, where I write papers that are published and travel around to conferences to speak on this very topic, to point out where he was wrong.

:oldlol:

congrats on having a job :applause:

feel free to post your grades in here...or any awards you have won, cause you know your millions of readers might want to see that kind of stuff

[KeylessEntry]

how can we take your scientific judgments on the enviornment seriously when you aren't even capable of judging the attention these posts get?


i nominate this for dumbest question of the year

[-p.tiddy-]

i nominate this for dumbest question of the year
I nominate this for hyperbole of the year

[-p.tiddy-]

seriously though HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS...:oldlol:

Duece thinks we all have some monster following like our posts get better ratings than the Super Bowl...

[RidonKs]

I nominate this for hyperbole of the year
runner-up, you mean... you've already identified the clear winner lol

yeah, hundreds of thousands not so much. out of curiosity though, and maybe the answer's obvious, are viewcounts only updated when registered users view the page or does it include unregistered undocumented illegal alien users as well?

[-p.tiddy-]

runner-up, you mean... you've already identified the clear winner lol

yeah, hundreds of thousands not so much. out of curiosity though, and maybe the answer's obvious, are viewcounts only updated when registered users view the page or does it include unregistered undocumented illegal alien users as well?
I think Duece was serious though...

anyone clicking runs that up, it has been proven by LOJ i think with some thread he made...and EVERY TIME we click on them it goes up...so the 30 times I have opened this thread have all counted

this thread has like 1,000+ views...by probably like 200 people...and of those 200 I bet like 20 actually read the whole thing

[RidonKs]

I think Duece was serious though...
i don't doubt it, but he was probably also in a rush. let's not put too much stock into it.

i think this forum gets a lot of unregistered traffic, maybe more than you're implying, certainly less than deuce's numbers. i dunno, based on that, average viewcounts seem a little low, which is where my query stems from.

i know the same registered user clicking on a thread multiple times adjusts the count, i'm just curious about the non-logged-in.

[-p.tiddy-]

i don't doubt it, but he was probably also in a rush. let's not put too much stock into it.

i think this forum gets a lot of unregistered traffic, maybe more than you're implying, certainly less than deuce's numbers. i dunno, based on that, average viewcounts seem a little low, which is where my query stems from.

i know the same registered user clicking on a thread multiple times adjusts the count, i'm just curious about the non-logged-in.
it has to count the non-registered users...if you sort by number of views you will see a thread called "Legend of Josh is a Loser" with 300,000+ views...it got that high the day it was created...I can't remember how it happened though...but it is impossible for the view count to get that high from registered users only

[tpols]

seriously though HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS...:oldlol:

Duece thinks we all have some monster following like our posts get better ratings than the Super Bowl...
He was just generalizing.. a lot of people are reading shit that isn't true. It's pretty funny how you guys are trying to argue with someone who has spent their whole life studying this very topic when you have absolutely zero knowledge on it outside googling some charts.

Even funnier how you cherrypick one small part out of his post and blow it up to make it look like you have an argument.

[KeylessEntry]

seriously though HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS...:oldlol:

Duece thinks we all have some monster following like our posts get better ratings than the Super Bowl...


Yeah even though deuce has a degree in ecology and feeds his family doing environmental work, we should dismiss everything he says on the environment because he overestimated or just exaggerated the number of people who might be viewing this thread.

[RidonKs]

it has to count the non-registered users...if you sort by number of views you will see a thread called "Legend of Josh is a Loser" with 300,000+ views...it got that high the day it was created...I can't remember how it happened though...but it is impossible for the view count to get that high from registered users only
yeah, that makes sense. plus the BME Pain Olympics getting so popular that it became the number one hit on google, which only pumped up the count even more. also, there's no reason a programmer would devise a system like i described... because it's both less useful and more difficult to create. lol

[KeylessEntry]

It's pretty funny how you guys are trying to argue with someone who has spent their whole life studying this very topic when you have absolutely zero knowledge on it outside googling some charts.

Even funnier how you cherrypick one small part out of his post and blow it up to make it look like you have an argument.


This x1000. The only climate skeptic in this thread who has any sort of scientific training whatsoever is hawker.

Primetimes idea of scientific proof is a youtube video where some guy describes his near death experience.

[-p.tiddy-]

He was just generalizing.. a lot of people are reading shit that isn't true. It's pretty funny how you guys are trying to argue with someone who has spent their whole life studying this very topic when you have absolutely zero knowledge on it outside googling some charts.

Even funnier how you cherrypick one small part out of his post and blow it up to make it look like you have an argument.
I personally haven't argued any of his points...I just wanted to show him how it is impossible to view him as a respectable adult scientist when every other word in his posts are "idiot" and "moron" and "dolt" on a sports forum no less


that is typical behavior of a 5th grader, not a respected and established scientist

If Duece ever did go on to achieve any sort of fame his posts would be a huge embarrassment to him if they surfaced to his fans

[-p.tiddy-]

This x1000. The only climate skeptic in this thread who has any sort of scientific training whatsoever is hawker.

Primetimes idea of scientific proof is a youtube video where some guy describes his near death experience.
wtf are you talking about dude seriously?...have not posted any vid in here or even anything claiming to be "scientfic proof"

I haven't even posted much in this thread...

[KeylessEntry]

Where did come up with this rule that scientists arent allowed to call people idiots and dolts?

[tpols]

I personally haven't argued any of his points...I just wanted to show him how it is impossible to view him as a respectable adult scientist when every other word in his posts are "idiot" and "moron" and "dolt" on a sports forum no less
If you dedicated your whole life to a partciular thing and someone who has zero experience with that field tried to act like he knows what he's talking about spreading misinformation to a lot of people[not necessarily you] you might be a little upset too.

[KeylessEntry]

wtf are you talking about dude seriously?...have not posted any vid in here or even anything claiming to be "scientfic proof"

I haven't even posted much in this thread...

Do you really not remember the giant arguments you have had on this message board about whether or not NDEs are evidence of god and what constitutes as "proof" of them?

[-p.tiddy-]

If you dedicated your whole life to a partciular thing and someone who has zero experience with that field tried to act like he knows what he's talking about spreading misinformation to a lot of people[not necessarily you] you might be a little upset too.
not true at all...I have been making video game art for the past 12 years...if someone came in here and started throwing around false words about CG graphics I wouldn't suddenly turn into a child...I would be friendly and correct him...have an "adult debate"


if he said something false about the Mavericks or Cowboys THEN I would go into 5th grade bully mode though lol

[RidonKs]

I personally haven't argued any of his points...I just wanted to show him how it is impossible to view him as a respectable adult scientist when every other word in his posts are "idiot" and "moron" and "dolt" on a sports forum no less
lol, aren't you guys pretty much the same age? you engage in that sort of stuff all the time too, a little more creatively i'll grant, but the content's the same. and you're a video game programmer/designer or something like that! how could one so advanced along such an admirable career path possibly stoop to such debased antics?

cuz it's fun and internally rewarding to insult people you disagree with

[-p.tiddy-]

Do you really not remember the giant arguments you have had on this message board about whether or not NDEs are real and what constitutes as "proof" of them?
Yes I do remember, and I have said a hundred times in here there is no scientfic proof for NDEs

wtf does that have to do with this?...we aren't even debating what consitutes "proof" right now

[-p.tiddy-]

lol, aren't you guys pretty much the same age? you engage in that sort of stuff all the time too, a little more creatively i'll grant, but the content's the same. and you're a video game programmer/designer or something like that! how could one so advanced along such an admirable career path possibly stoop to such debased antics?

cuz it's fun and internally rewarding to insult people you disagree with
I don't insult people like he does...and I am not even 1/100th as an arrogant prick as him

If I insult people in here it is the 2nd punch thrown

[RidonKs]

I don't insult people like he does...and I am not even 1/100th as an arrogant prick as him

If I insult people in here it is the 2nd punch thrown
now you are... you've changed a bunch on this board, become much more temperate and much less likely to get into super extended ranting/insulting debates with the same people night after night after night. deuce... hasn't changed very much at all, at least since i started posting here

go back to 2007-8 and check your posts, i bet you'll find more pre-emptive strikes than you're admitting right now. like, LOTS more

[KeylessEntry]

Yes I do remember, and I have said a hundred times in here there is no scientfic proof for NDEs

wtf does that have to do with this?...we aren't even debating what consitutes "proof" right now

I could have sworn I read a thread where you were arguing that first hand accounts in youtube videos were scientific proof of NDEs. If I am remembering things incorrectly, my apologies.


Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because it seems like a lot of climate skeptics in this thread dont really understand how the scientific process works, and just think that environmental science is some propaganda machine to hamper the economy and make money for these whackjob alarmist environmentalists.

[-p.tiddy-]

now you are... you've changed a bunch on this board, become much more temperate and much less likely to get into super extended ranting/insulting debates with the same people night after night after night. deuce... hasn't changed very much at all, at least since i started posting here

go back to 2007-8 and check your posts, i bet you'll find more pre-emptive strikes than you're admitting right now. like, LOTS more
yeah for sure...I was much more immature as a poster back then, I will fully admit

[tpols]

not true at all...I have been making video game art for the past 12 years...if someone came in here and started throwing around false words about CG graphics I wouldn't suddenly turn into a child...I would be friendly and correct him...have an "adult debate"
l
Video games? Thats a little different man.. how can you talk wrong about video games? Saying it takes a xx chip to make a graphic crad rather than a yy chip? Saying one chip is better than another? Idk.. it doesnt have much signifigance in the real world. This topic, however, is a huge social issue.. it's on a much higher plane of importance, which is why he worries more about it when people try to misinform the public.

[RidonKs]

yeah for sure...I was much more immature as a poster back then, I will fully admit
but at the time, you were still in your late 20s and a 'professional', correct?

everybody likes to be a dick, and when you've got the knowledge to back up your condescension, and an anonymous forum of communication to boot... it makes it even easier.

[-p.tiddy-]

Video games? Thats a little different man.. how can you talk wrong about video games? Saying it takes a xx chip to make a graphic crad rather than a yy chip? Saying one chip is better than another? Idk.. it doesnt have much signifigance in the real world. This topic, however, is a huge social issue.. it's on a much higher plane of importance, which is why he worries more about it when people try to misinform the public.
I think most would expect the video game artist to be more insulting and childish than a scientist

Duece isn't upset because he thinks Joe is infecting the world with false data...Duece is upset because he is ALWAYS upset...he is just an upset human

[-p.tiddy-]

but at the time, you were still in your late 20s and a 'professional', correct?

everybody likes to be a dick, and when you've got the knowledge to back up your condescension, and an anonymous forum of communication to boot... it makes it even easier.
honestly that has less to do with my age and more to do with me still being in full blown party mode back then...

the only times I like to be a dick is when I feel the person deserves it...

[KeylessEntry]

I think most would expect the video game artist to be more insulting and childish than a scientist

Duece isn't upset because he thinks Joe is infecting the world with false data...Duece is upset because he is ALWAYS upset...he is just an upset human

I dont think scientists are any less likely to act childish than video game designers. They are scientists... not priests, its not like there is some scientist code of conduct rules that all scientists follow, and a lot of scientists completely lack social skills anyway. I had a chemistry prof who was one of the most angry and bitter people I have met in my entire life, that didnt make the stuff he said about chemistry any less true though.

[rufuspaul]

seriously though HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS...:oldlol:

Duece thinks we all have some monster following like our posts get better ratings than the Super Bowl...

Starface has at least that many followers in his twitter.

[-p.tiddy-]

I dont think scientists are any less likely to act childish than video game designers. They are scientists... not priests, its not like there is some scientist code of conduct rules that all scientists follow, and a lot of scientists completely lack social skills anyway. I had a chemistry prof who was one of the most angry and bitter people I have met in my entire life, that didnt make the stuff he said about chemistry any less true though.
yeah I can see that...for the record I never questioned Duece's input on this subject...I just wish his input wasn't in attack form

If Duece corrected people in a friendly way rather than a "I'm the only one here with a brain" way then it would probably go much further in terms of teaching people as well...

[Jello]

Man this thread is a sea of the uninformed and blowhards going back and forth with each other.

1) The world is warming/changing and we have everything to do with it. There is very little scientific debate about that.
Everything to do with it? This is what environmentalists do. Downplay the natural causes, and demonize the polluters. They do this while knowing it is an extremely complex system with many inputs. They have an agenda and plays its part in money and politics.

2) The IPCC is a politically appointed organization, but they utilize only “real”, peer reviewed, scientific studies to draw conclusions from.
Doesn't matter when they have implications on business and politics.

3) You morons keep talking about how all this stuff changes over time and we've already seen this. Exactly, over time, as in GEOLOGIC time. All the metrics we track were slow and steady for the past 10 THOUSAND years, but have started going haywire the past 2 hundred since industrialization and urbanization. There's nothing natural about the CO2 diagram and it's consequences (increased radiative forcing).
Yes and over time, graphs have shown CO2 increase seems to have been caused by warming, not causing warming and the positive feedback is nonexistent. In fact cumulative feedback has been negative.

4) You are also all out in the cold talking about the impacts being few and/or too far down the line. That couldn't be further from the truth. The impacts are now, and they're costing us billions:
This is the impact of global warming, the debate is whether or not it is anthropogenic. There is a debate on what is causing global warming and to say "humans have everything to do with it" is completely disregarding the huge natural contributors.

[Jello]

So if a nurse takes three pints of blood from you that's cool, that's not apocalyptic and then the next day they take 5 pints from you....well you're feeling a bit off, but nothing apocalyptic. then the next day they want 8 pints....you'd be fine with that right?

Also our oceans are turning to acid. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
The ocean is a natural buffer that can absorb an order magnitude higher than the atmosphere. Our contribution to CO2 is almost insignificant regarding the ocean, except returning biomass to overfished oceans.

[Jello]

Alarmists had the same knee jerk reacton when they attempted to fix the hole over antarctica in 1989 as well as in 1997. They phased out CFCs and in the process used chemicals that released greenhouses gases 2 or 3 times of CO2 they planned to eliminate. Alarmists overplay the human role, while skeptics underplay it. We should definitely reduce emissions but I'll just leave this here for Deuce to look at.
http://kin152.gadz.org/climatologie/CO2.pdf

[RidonKs]

^^this guy is becoming a problem folks, what are we going to do about him?

[-p.tiddy-]

Alarmists had the same knee jerk reacton when they attempted to fix the hole over antarctica in 1989 as well as in 1997. They phased out CFCs and in the process used chemicals that released greenhouses gases 2 or 3 times of CO2 they planned to eliminate. Alarmists overplay the human role, while skeptics underplay it. We should definitely reduce emissions but I'll just leave this here for Deuce to look at.
http://kin152.gadz.org/climatologie/CO2.pdf

Duece, these charts are much more convincing than the one you posted

just sayin

[Jello]

Duece, these charts are much more convincing than the one you posted

just sayin
First known accurate measurement of CO2.
Thenard-1812
Value 385.0 ppm

Current value 391.80 ppm
Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL

They are different timescales though.

[RidonKs]

First known accurate measurement of CO2.
Thenard-1812
Value 385.0 ppm

Current value 391.80 ppm
Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL
http://elmerfudd.us/elmer.jpg

intewesting... vewwwwwy intewesting

[Jello]

That's pretty damn interesting. Where'd you find that article?
Went through my college search engine.

[Sarcastic]

Glacier timeline video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/glacier-time-lapse_n_1205642.html)

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Global warming is f**king farse. It's a racket pushed by leftists to undermine capitolism while taking your money.

The earth's temperature has increased and decreased periodically over the last whatever or so billion years

People weren't around for most of those years nor was there any man made air pollution.

Some global warming scientist have been caught lying about their data

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for is only about 3% of the total. 3 f**cking percent.

The sun is a giant ball of plasma, gas and radiation complete with sun spots and solar flares. It's core fluctuates, it's surface fluctuates, it's temperature fluctuates. It's cyclical.

Global warming is not caused by human beings. You shouldn't feel guilty about it and you shouldn't pay money(carbon credits) to fix it. They've even taken to calling it climate change recently instead of global warming after some data showed that the earth was actually getting cooler for a stretch. These people are f**king criminals and you are being had.

[I.Malcolm]

Global warming is f**king farse. It's a racket pushed by leftists to undermine capitolism while taking your money.

The earth's temperature has increased and decreased periodically over the last whatever or so billion years

People weren't around for most of those years nor was there any man made air pollution.

Some global warming scientist have been caught lying about their data

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for is only about 3% of the total. 3 f**cking percent.

The sun is a giant ball of plasma, gas and radiation complete with sun spots and solar flares. It's core fluctuates, it's surface fluctuates, it's temperature fluctuates. It's cyclical.

Global warming is not caused by human beings. You shouldn't feel guilty about it and you shouldn't pay money(carbon credits) to fix it. They've even taken to calling it climate change recently instead of global warming after some data showed that the earth was actually getting cooler for a stretch. These people are f**king criminals and you are being had.

It's been called climate change for years..

[Balla_Status]

This x1000. The only climate skeptic in this thread who has any sort of scientific training whatsoever is hawker.

Primetimes idea of scientific proof is a youtube video where some guy describes his near death experience.

Yeah and I'm leaning more towards it being true now. Doesn't mean I'll quit my job though. I enjoy it.

And fossil fuels will still be the major fuel for our generation.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

It's been called climate change for years..

And what triggered that change in terminology?