10 years ago, "scientists" said the effects of global warming will be irreversable [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

bladefd

10-30-2019, 09:07 PM

I don't need to tell you because global warming isn't real :oldlol:

Not real? Here, refute the science and logic:

The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

That is global warming/climate change in a nutshell.

Overdrive

10-30-2019, 09:32 PM

Not real? Here, refute the science and logic:

The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

That is global warming/climate change in a nutshell.

I don't know why some still argue with people who deny scientific evidence. It's useless. Do you think you can change their mind when a pletora of scientific papers can't?

diamenz

10-30-2019, 10:06 PM

I don't need to tell you because global warming isn't real :oldlol:

you don't have an answer because you're just a confused little boy.

ILLsmak

10-30-2019, 10:06 PM

'like my raincoat...'

-Smak

AirBonner

10-30-2019, 10:12 PM

FultzNationRISE

10-30-2019, 10:14 PM

Here's what I don't understand. Even if 99% of scientists are incorrect and global warming isn't an impending catastrophe, what the hell is so wrong with wanting to keep the planet livable for as long as possible for future generations?

Nothing.

What's wrong is only caring about global warming for the sake of political one upmanship or making yourself feel smarter than 'the deniers.'

If you care about the planet, start by proposing solutions most people will agree with and are likely to choose to voluntarily support. Don't start by finding the most divisive regulations and trying to shove them down the throat of the 50% of people who aren't interested in them.

Of course, there's no point in explaining any of this to you. You need shit like this to make you feel better about not being able to throw a ball straight.

imdaman99

10-30-2019, 10:46 PM

Humans destroy things, that's just what we do. I don't doubt we are slowly killing the planet. But keyword is slowly.

tpols

10-30-2019, 10:49 PM

Here's what I don't understand. Even if 99% of scientists are incorrect and global warming isn't an impending catastrophe, what the hell is so wrong with wanting to keep the planet livable for as long as possible for future generations?

Because most of it all is political pandering and money collecting...

USA only has less than 5% of the worlds population.

China, India and all the developing countries don't give a **** about reducing their emissions so reducing ours doesnt mean shit.

bladefd

10-30-2019, 11:04 PM

Because most of it all is political pandering and money collecting...

USA only has less than 5% of the worlds population.

China, India and all the developing countries don't give a **** about reducing their emissions so reducing ours doesnt mean shit.

But that 5% of world's population alone uses 25% of the world's total energy. We have a MASSIVE impact.

oh the horror

10-30-2019, 11:17 PM

Cute thread. Come to SoCal right now and go to the west side and take a look around. Everything is on fire. People are avoiding going to that area because it hurts to breathe.

warriorfan

10-30-2019, 11:22 PM

Cute thread. Come to SoCal right now and go to the west side and take a look around. Everything is on fire. People are avoiding going to that area because it hurts to breathe.

What? Lmao

Rocket

10-30-2019, 11:28 PM

Global warming is the biggest hoax ever pulled. The global cooling scare of the 70's did not fair well when we entered a warming period so they then went with global warming. Then when the warming almost stopped they they call it "climate change". They can and do blame any bad weather on "climate change". :facepalm

Bawkish

10-31-2019, 02:05 AM

who says were destroying the planet? were only destroying ourselves

Earth has survived far more dangerous than humans and yet it's still here and for another millions of years

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 02:25 AM

Not real? Here, refute the science and logic:

The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

That is global warming/climate change in a nutshell.

This...

Also, CO2 trapped in polar ice escapes as the ice melts, multiplying the effect.

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 02:49 AM

Global warming will happen whether we are here or not. Everything we do is easily irreversible. Take for instance China's smog. Remember in the Beijing Olympics it took China one day to clear the smog and have perfectly clear sky's :oldlol:

Hmmm... I don't think that China point is accurate (https://www.popsci.com/why-is-smog-in-china-so-bad/)

[QUOTE]Smog in China has many causes, including pollution from industries and traffic, but it tends to happen more often in the winter, when plummeting temperatures cause electricity demand to soar. This pollution can come from many sources, but burning coal has been linked to the largest number of air pollution deaths in China, causing 366,000 premature deaths in 2013.

In the winter, more families are turning on their heaters

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 03:13 AM

who says were destroying the planet? were only destroying ourselves

Earth has survived far more dangerous than humans and yet it's still here and for another millions of years

Yup, pretty much... The planet will recover. We won't. The range of comfort in nature for humans and most wildlife is quite narrow, and widens as we become more technologically advanced, but we're not at the point where we can weather (pun intended) the changes we are seeing.

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1_greenhouse_effect_rev_5-22-19.gif

solar.hands

10-31-2019, 03:17 AM

Yup, pretty much... The planet will recover. We won't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1_greenhouse_effect_rev_5-22-19.gif

Which is a good thing. Earth is over populated. Wouldnt mind sacrificing some (like 3/4 of humans) of us. This is coming from a guy who lives in an island nation. If we die, we die.

Kblaze8855

10-31-2019, 05:44 AM

Here's what I don't understand. Even if 99% of scientists are incorrect and global warming isn't an impending catastrophe, what the hell is so wrong with wanting to keep the planet livable for as long as possible for future generations?

There is no way humans have the potential to create a venus like runaway greenhouse situation that makes the world not be livable in any period of time thats reasonable to discuss.

Could 30 million years of this do it?

Who am I to say?

But I suspect humans wont be around and fully earth bound that long.

The universe will get us before we get the earth.

This shit takes so long its pointless to even worry about where we will be by then. People 200 years ago couldnt imagine the advances we have. These things take tens of thousands...hell million of years. The world has been what we would call inhospitable both in heat and cold in its history before we even existed. It will be both again.

We are along for a ride we might kiiiiiiiiiiiinda help steer but cant control.

If we triggered a nuclear winter the world still wouldnt be inhospitable to life.

With all our advances we still arent as important as ****ing alge to this planet. A giant volcano eruption, the release of deep sea gases, and the disruption of the currents likely killed the alge and caused the extinction of 90% of the earth like 300 million years ago. If it happens again none of our technology would be able to prevent it. Enough alge dies....the majority of the planet goes with it then or now.

The Earth will eventually kill us. We wont kill it. All the shit we pour into the ocean....all the bees we kill....we still cant hurt the earth like it can hurt itself.

We are a guy running on a treadmill that sits on a time bomb. Might as well get off and have some chinese food.

We are absolutely on a timer no matter what we do.

The only thing that safeguards humanity is colonies on multiple worlds.

Venus and mars got ****ed up all on their own. So will the earth. Even if you drive a hybrid.

qrich

10-31-2019, 05:49 AM

Cute thread. Come to SoCal right now and go to the west side and take a look around. Everything is on fire. People are avoiding going to that area because it hurts to breathe.

1) Getty fire was due to a tree branch flying into a power line due to the Santa Anas.

2) Sepulveda Basin was due to a homeless encampment (thank you Dems!) Having a propane tank explode.

Neither have to do with global warming.

Also, no one is avoiding that area.....at all.

If they were, it wouldn't be a near 2 hour trek from the Valley to Randy's Donuts between 7 am and 8 pm.

But hey, continue with your fear mongering

Patrick Chewing

10-31-2019, 06:20 AM

who says were destroying the planet? were only destroying ourselves

Earth has survived far more dangerous than humans and yet it's still here and for another millions of years

People forget that meteors the size of cities have crashed into this planet at thousands of miles per hour before.

ItsMillerTime

10-31-2019, 09:26 AM

Nothing.

What's wrong is only caring about global warming for the sake of political one upmanship or making yourself feel smarter than 'the deniers.'

If you care about the planet, start by proposing solutions most people will agree with and are likely to choose to voluntarily support. Don't start by finding the most divisive regulations and trying to shove them down the throat of the 50% of people who aren't interested in them.

Of course, there's no point in explaining any of this to you. You need shit like this to make you feel better about not being able to throw a ball straight.

So we should continue investing in and utilizing fossil fuels, cutting back regulations on corporations that need to dispose of toxic waste, and continue the rate of deforestation just because some politicians are running a campaign of a clean environment? LMAO.

If any woman actually had enough interest and pity in you to give you children, you'd change your mind. Until then, I suppose you'll realize how much of a dumbfvck you are when coastal cities start disappearing around the world and the refugee and water crisis begins.

ItsMillerTime

10-31-2019, 09:30 AM

The Earth will eventually kill us. We wont kill it. All the shit we pour into the ocean....all the bees we kill....we still cant hurt the earth like it can hurt itself.

No shit, that's pretty undisputed. However, would you rather the Earth kill us sooner or later? If there was something we could do as a society to prolong human's existence on this planet, why would we not do it? Should give us time to find a new sustainable planet.

qrich

10-31-2019, 09:35 AM

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 09:57 AM

Which is a good thing. Earth is over populated. Wouldnt mind sacrificing some (like 3/4 of humans) of us. This is coming from a guy who lives in an island nation. If we die, we die.

People who live on island nations will likely die off first. Thanks for your sacrifice. Kidding...

rufuspaul

10-31-2019, 09:58 AM

This...

Also, CO2 trapped in polar ice escapes as the ice melts, multiplying the effect.

Methane is also significant but you don't hear much about it.

1) Getty fire was due to a tree branch flying into a power line due to the Santa Anas.

2) Sepulveda Basin was due to a homeless encampment (thank you Dems!) Having a propane tank explode.

Neither have to do with global warming.

Also, no one is avoiding that area.....at all.

If they were, it wouldn't be a near 2 hour trek from the Valley to Randy's Donuts between 7 am and 8 pm.

But hey, continue with your fear mongering

You do realize that the winds are especially strong this year because of climate change right? The melting of the polar ice caps has caused polar air to dip South into the Rockies where they're having frigid temperatures and tons of snow right now. The difference in temperature and atmospheric and barometric pressure is pushing dry, hot air from the desert East, thus causing the fires to spread quickly and making fighting them more difficult.

IMO we need to expand efforts on 2 fronts: Carbon emission reduction and Carbon Removal.

rufuspaul

10-31-2019, 10:00 AM

People who live on island nations will likely die off first. Thanks for your sacrifice. Kidding...

And it turns out that previous tide predictions were underestimating sea rise. It's now projected that pretty much the entire country of Vietnam will be under water by 2050. And that's just one example.

CelticBaller

10-31-2019, 10:11 AM

But that 5% of world's population alone uses 25% of the world's total energy. We have a MASSIVE impact.
And we have been doing a great job at reducing emissions, irrc were top 3.

So why the **** are the politicians pushing their socialism under the mantle of

CelticBaller

10-31-2019, 10:12 AM

who says were destroying the planet? were only destroying ourselves

Earth has survived far more dangerous than humans and yet it's still here and for another millions of years
Humans have survived drastic cooling and heating periods

You have to be severely underestimating the human race to think we will all die in 10 years

Jasper

10-31-2019, 10:30 AM

Do you have evidence that it won't be irreversible?
I remember when all the planes were grounded during 9/11 issues and the scientists stated that the air quality improved significantly over that short time.

Jasper

10-31-2019, 10:31 AM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]And we have been doing a great job at reducing emissions, irrc were top 3.

So why the **** are the politicians pushing their socialism under the mantle of

CelticBaller

10-31-2019, 11:02 AM

That's right Trump has lifted emissions for the coal industry because of his soft money .....

WELL done :facepalm (make america great) :rolleyes:
http://theconversation.com/eighteen-countries-showing-the-way-to-carbon-zero-112295

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-fall-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468

[QUOTE]Unfortunately, Canada didn't make the list. Emissions in Canada decreased by about half a per cent, Le Qu

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 12:49 PM

Methane is also significant but you don't hear much about it.

Yup... methane isn't as abundant as CO2 in our atmosphere, but it is a more active greenhouse gas and is more efficient in trapping heat.

solar.hands

10-31-2019, 01:00 PM

People who live on island nations will likely die off first. Thanks for your sacrifice. Kidding...

Youre welcome. Theres not enough resource in this planet. Either A we find a new one or B nature eliminates most of us. Guess which one will happen first.

MaxFly

10-31-2019, 01:30 PM

Youre welcome. Theres not enough resource in this planet. Either A we find a new one or B nature eliminates most of us. Guess which one will happen first.

There are enough resources for those presently on the planet. The problem is that our population centers are too concentrated and we are wasteful and high maintenance.

bladefd

10-31-2019, 04:30 PM

And we have been doing a great job at reducing emissions, irrc were top 3.

So why the **** are the politicians pushing their socialism under the mantle of “environmentalism” and telling us we’re destroying the world?

Our job is not done until we are carbon neutral (coal usage 0%, almost 0% oil or very minimal amount, mostly clean energy like solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal but you can have some small amount of natural gas)

Coal dropped from generating 40% of our total energy to 28% in just 5 years or so. Lets continue that to 0%.
We also have the money, resources and ability to lead the world in clean energy research and sell the technology to the world. Invest $75 billion in molten salt reactor technology and sell it to the world for hundreds of billions..

FultzNationRISE

10-31-2019, 06:43 PM

So we should continue investing in and utilizing fossil fuels, cutting back regulations on corporations that need to dispose of toxic waste, and continue the rate of deforestation just because some politicians are running a campaign of a clean environment? LMAO.

If any woman actually had enough interest and pity in you to give you children, you'd change your mind. Until then, I suppose you'll realize how much of a dumbfvck you are when coastal cities start disappearing around the world and the refugee and water crisis begins.

Bro, I see a LOT of Bernie bumper stickers around Austin. Why aren't these people riding the bus?

I see a LOT of Bernie bumper stickers at the barbecue joint in Austin. Why aren't these people all vegetarians?

I see a LOT of people loading pet food into cars with Bernie bumper stickers. Why do these people buy processed animal products packaged in plastic and shipped in big trucks around the country, so their pets can poop it out into plastic bags that get thrown in the garbage? There are 180,000,000 cats and dogs in America exhaling carbon dioxide. Is that necessary?

What percentage of Americans are climate alarmists, would you say? 30? 40? 50? What percentage of those people would you say don't have a car, don't have a pet, and are vegan? MAYBE 5%?

Could probably make a big difference if THEY all changed, huh? Should we make some laws that liberals can't own cars, or pets, and must eat vegan?

"No, but but,, the guy in the W Virginia coal mine has to lose his job bc global warming! I dont have to give anything up! Just the republican voterseressrs!!!!! Not meeeee!!!!!"

You're a gay hypocrite loser.

FultzNationRISE

10-31-2019, 06:44 PM

There are enough resources for those presently on the planet. The problem is that our population centers are too concentrated and we are wasteful and high maintenance.

So.... go away?

Hawker

10-31-2019, 06:52 PM

FultzNationRISE

10-31-2019, 07:01 PM

Well, if you really cared, you wouldn't create children.

You can tell he wifed up an adherent of "fat feminism"

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Lindy_West.jpg/220px-Lindy_West.jpg

and she's now pregnant with a child who will 'not have a gender forced upon it' and will be given some kind of cringey native american name.

Always lulzy when dudes who finish last think they've finished first.

tpols

10-31-2019, 07:41 PM

FultzNationRISE

10-31-2019, 08:02 PM

CelticBaller

10-31-2019, 08:08 PM

Our job is not done until we are carbon neutral (coal usage 0%, almost 0% oil or very minimal amount, mostly clean energy like solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal but you can have some small amount of natural gas)

Coal dropped from generating 40% of our total energy to 28% in just 5 years or so. Lets continue that to 0%.
We also have the money, resources and ability to lead the world in clean energy research and sell the technology to the world. Invest $75 billion in molten salt reactor technology and sell it to the world for hundreds of billions..
This is ridiculous. Not only is not feasible (again, china and other countries are not doing it) I am pretty sure we could find a way to reduce carbon emissions by using filters(which are confirmed to work)

You guys love to jump to extremes :facepalm

tpols

10-31-2019, 08:08 PM

^^ :lol

*broadcasts virtue signal to the world*

-please insert women and money-

CelticBaller

10-31-2019, 08:09 PM

Proctor

10-31-2019, 08:12 PM

Bro, I see a LOT of Bernie bumper stickers around Austin.
Your mom finally splurged on some basement windows?

FultzNationRISE

10-31-2019, 08:21 PM

Your mom finally splurged on some basement windows?

Um, good one... :facepalm

Don't you and rrr3 have another installment of The Matrix to direct?

oh the horror

10-31-2019, 11:20 PM

1) Getty fire was due to a tree branch flying into a power line due to the Santa Anas.

2) Sepulveda Basin was due to a homeless encampment (thank you Dems!) Having a propane tank explode.

Neither have to do with global warming.

Also, no one is avoiding that area.....at all.

If they were, it wouldn't be a near 2 hour trek from the Valley to Randy's Donuts between 7 am and 8 pm.

But hey, continue with your fear mongering

Hey man we should meet up sometime. Then I can slap the shit out of you in person and post it for ish. Do you ALWAYS have your head up your own ass?

“Fear mongering” - look asshole - you SHOULD be afraid. Better that than brazen and stupid.

oh the horror

10-31-2019, 11:25 PM

man its crazy how humans overestimate their impact lmao.

there have been many extinction events where damn near all 'big' life was wiped out... and in its wake evolution just took hold again eventually and it sprung back up in different forms.

There's no killing the earth by us... we could unleash all of the nukes every country has at once and wipe out 100% of our species and eventually in a million years or less the place may look better than the best we ever left it from an ecological perspective.

:lol

This is the failure in logic that I don’t understand.

When people speak about such events or global warming etc etc

We are all obviously talking about our own ability to sustain our way of living comfortably within the system on this planet.

Not sure what the debate here is or push back from the resident chuckleheads. This isn’t an abstract concept, or hyperbole.

There is no debate. You cannot continue to pollute and dispose of our waste in the manner in which we are doing it. We cannot continue to obtain our resources the way in which we are doing it forever.

Pollution of oceans, air quality, fishing the oceans and killing of animals etc

You can’t expect to continue on this trajectory and get anything positive from it. It just won’t happen.

The hubris of humans is something funny to watch. I think it’s merely our nature to think something won’t happen to us or it isn’t real until it’s real and it’s actually happening to us.

bladefd

11-01-2019, 02:05 AM

This is ridiculous. Not only is not feasible (again, china and other countries are not doing it) I am pretty sure we could find a way to reduce carbon emissions by using filters(which are confirmed to work)

You guys love to jump to extremes :facepalm

No, it's not ridiculous. Germany is there already, Netherlands well on its way, France is close, couple other European countries. We can do it too.

Why use backwards 19th century coal when we are in the 21st century? Get with the times. We can get much better efficiency, more energy and less pollution with other means. Why risk oil leaks drilling well out in the ocean and farther near the Arctic, risking massive leaks we can't clean? Why send people a mile into the ground to get to coal mine? Why be a fool sticking to extreme means of acquiring energy when you can use latest technology and modern energy sources?

bladefd

11-01-2019, 02:21 AM

[QUOTE=oh the horror]This is the failure in logic that I don

Kblaze8855

11-01-2019, 06:03 AM

These buffoons think we are talking about the demise of the planet by our actions. Of course the planet will be here even if we were to nuke ourselves and went insane. The planet will outlive us no matter what we do or not do.

The issue is our children and grandchildren and future generations will not have the same quality of life as us and our parents before us if we throw nature into chaos and turmoil beyond repair. Let's leave a clean world worth living in for our future generations rather than a dumpster.

Or leave a dumpster to future generations with trash everywhere and extreme weather. A world warming up, sea levels rising, acid rain on the norm, massive wastelands in oceans of dead fishes, most animal species extinct, deserts spreading, rivers filled with dangerous waste, constant warfare over natural resources like fresh water, and overall chaos across the globe. Clearly the end of our quality of life we appreciate in half the world. Nobody is talking about the end of Planet Earth.

It's our choice.

The world was coming out of an ice age as humanity evolved, the sea used to be higher than it is now and it will be again with or without us, acid rain used to be so bad it dissolved rocks, 90% of sea creatures have died at least twice long before humans existed, the Sahara went from a grassland to a desert without human intervention inside the last 10 thousand years, the same shit that killed the ocean creatures killed most of the river ones too several times in history, and the vast majority of fresh water is used for agriculture to feed humanity and live stock....that shortage is mostly an issue of too many people not our treatment of the environment. And most of the places with extreme droughts got that way due to changes that long predate humanity. Humans dirty the fresh water with bad practices in poor areas. But you are hardly gonna get poor people in india to stop pissing in the Ganges or people in Liberia to stop digging lattrines near water. These are issues of poverty and infrastructure damaged by conflict not solved by any green policies in the first world. Cholera long predates the industrial revolution.

You are complaining about issues of the natural world which is ever changing. Can we accelerate it or change the timelines of inevitable things? If the scientists say so im inclined to accept its happening. But other scientists have told us enough of the worlds history to know that its natural changes have been far more extreme than anything humanity has existed to experience.

We are here for blinks of an eye and seek to keep the entire ever shifting planet in the form we find it because its comfortable where we happen to be sitting?

Guess what?

Comfortable here is shitty somewhere else. Think the people freezing in Siberia dont want some of that downright comfortable warmth they had as recently as 1500 years ago? That the people in the many deserts that used to be forests dont wish for a return to the climate of 40,000 years ago?

If theres one thing we know....its that change will **** up one place and help out another.

If America ends up a vast desert wasteland as north Africa gets a break it would no doubt be considered a disaster by the people in America....while the people in Libya are happy its not 124 degrees anymore. If you could live forever you would come to find none of the concerns you raise are really avoidable....we only alter the timetable of things that happen now and then with or without us.

Every forest will dry up, every river will run dry, a bad plankton boom will eventually wipe out 70% of the sea, and on and on it goes.

"Our children" will have essentially the same lives we do. So will their children. And many many many more generations.

But in time....the world will change. A lot. With or without our input. Your descendants will face issues we cant even wrap our heads around and putting up with climate cavemen survived more extreme versions of wont stop them. They wont even realize anything changed. Nobody in a desert now gives a **** it used to be a grassland or a rain forest. Its been a desert long as anyone they ever heard of remembers.

The people youre worried about 2400 years from now wont even see whatever world they have as unusual.

You wanna help...help the people we can reach through direct aid individually and as wealthy nations. You can help get that done.

You cant do shit for the people of 3654 who might have a beach in Kentucky.

They wont even care its there. It will have always been there from their perspective. And there will be a booming boat touring industry seeing the sunken ruins of old coastal cities who will have lost exactly zero people as the sea encroached because it took 290 years to reach ankle level a mile from what used to be the coast.

Worry about tomorrow. You really cant do shit for the people who will be dealing with any climate we couldnt easily adapt to. The people youre trying to help wont have a lifestyle you can even recognize.

You will be to them what the Sumerians are to us. They are not your children and they will not need your input to get by.

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 08:40 AM

So.... go away?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 08:52 AM

tpols

11-01-2019, 09:21 AM

It's been said by others, but bears repeating. No one is really talking about destroying the earth in the context that you are addressing. We're talking about damaging the planet badly enough to make our continued existence on it pretty uncomfortable and even dangerous in regions for future generations.

Kblaze already outlined why that doesnt matter either. Most people only know their grandparents or maybe their great grandparents at most. So once you get beyond a couple generations everybody is basically a stranger.

CelticBaller

11-01-2019, 09:35 AM

Kblaze dropping some truth bombs :applause:

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 09:47 AM

A snippet of NASA's analysis of the effects of climate change.

[QUOTE]U.S. Regional Effects

Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third3 and Fourth4 National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 09:52 AM

Kblaze already outlined why that doesnt matter either. Most people only know their grandparents or maybe their great grandparents at most. So once you get beyond a couple generations everybody is basically a stranger.

Yeah, I read what Kblaze wrote. I, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, disagree.

Just to put a point on something... You think we shouldn't take care to safeguard the planet because we won't know our descendants and people will basically be strangers in a few generations? That's the argument people are going with?

Jasper

11-01-2019, 10:11 AM

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
---------------
When I was a kid saw thousands of frogs on the road when it rained... they are gone now. (Paper mill pollution with acidic rain has infected our environment)

Parkinson disease occurs in this area more than another location , because of the well water.

Agriculture is based on heat and rain... When I was a kid it would rain about 3-4 times a week and most often at night. Now it is down pours of 3-6 inches of rain.. run off , wells suffer , as well as lakes and streams.

I trip to lake superior yearly and freeze up or not affects the lake more than people realize.

As a teen I traveled 15 miles to a neighboring town and saw one car, that same road now has strings of 20 cars .. population increase affects air as well as construction of more houses and more furnaces and more electric used.
Time lapses show a world of information , I used to live in Milwaukee as well as Chicago - the suburbs used to be close to the cities , now its like 20 miles from the hub if not farther , population growth as well as everything else .. so what suffers OUR ENVIRONMENT .

I can pin point any and all issues if anyone wants to discuss what happens in the Midwest. I am outside daily , own a farm and paddle lakes.

People saying scientists don't agree--- are only foolin' them selves / it is occurring(.) Quit living in the moment and look at the past as well as where we are now , and what will happen in your children's future as well as your grandchildren's lives.

Jasper

11-01-2019, 10:16 AM

The world was coming out of an ice age as humanity evolved, the sea used to be higher than it is now and it will be again with or without us, acid rain used to be so bad it dissolved rocks, 90% of sea creatures have died at least twice long before humans existed, the Sahara went from a grassland to a desert without human intervention inside the last 10 thousand years, the same shit that killed the ocean creatures killed most of the river ones too several times in history, and the vast majority of fresh water is used for agriculture to feed humanity and live stock....that shortage is mostly an issue of too many people not our treatment of the environment. And most of the places with extreme droughts got that way due to changes that long predate humanity. Humans dirty the fresh water with bad practices in poor areas. But you are hardly gonna get poor people in india to stop pissing in the Ganges or people in Liberia to stop digging lattrines near water. These are issues of poverty and infrastructure damaged by conflict not solved by any green policies in the first world. Cholera long predates the industrial revolution.

You are complaining about issues of the natural world which is ever changing. Can we accelerate it or change the timelines of inevitable things? If the scientists say so im inclined to accept its happening. But other scientists have told us enough of the worlds history to know that its natural changes have been far more extreme than anything humanity has existed to experience.

We are here for blinks of an eye and seek to keep the entire ever shifting planet in the form we find it because its comfortable where we happen to be sitting?

Guess what?

Comfortable here is shitty somewhere else. Think the people freezing in Siberia dont want some of that downright comfortable warmth they had as recently as 1500 years ago? That the people in the many deserts that used to be forests dont wish for a return to the climate of 40,000 years ago?

If theres one thing we know....its that change will **** up one place and help out another.

If America ends up a vast desert wasteland as north Africa gets a break it would no doubt be considered a disaster by the people in America....while the people in Libya are happy its not 124 degrees anymore. If you could live forever you would come to find none of the concerns you raise are really avoidable....we only alter the timetable of things that happen now and then with or without us.

Every forest will dry up, every river will run dry, a bad plankton boom will eventually wipe out 70% of the sea, and on and on it goes.

"Our children" will have essentially the same lives we do. So will their children. And many many many more generations.

But in time....the world will change. A lot. With or without our input. Your descendants will face issues we cant even wrap our heads around and putting up with climate cavemen survived more extreme versions of wont stop them. They wont even realize anything changed. Nobody in a desert now gives a **** it used to be a grassland or a rain forest. Its been a desert long as anyone they ever heard of remembers.

The people youre worried about 2400 years from now wont even see whatever world they have as unusual.

You wanna help...help the people we can reach through direct aid individually and as wealthy nations. You can help get that done.

You cant do shit for the people of 3654 who might have a beach in Kentucky.

They wont even care its there. It will have always been there from their perspective. And there will be a booming boat touring industry seeing the sunken ruins of old coastal cities who will have lost exactly zero people as the sea encroached because it took 290 years to reach ankle level a mile from what used to be the coast.

Worry about tomorrow. You really cant do shit for the people who will be dealing with any climate we couldnt easily adapt to. The people youre trying to help wont have a lifestyle you can even recognize.

You will be to them what the Sumerians are to us. They are not your children and they will not need your input to get by.

so your referencing what has happened thousands of years ago..
how many people lived on our planet at that time , and how much pollution did they affect our planet ??
Why don't you cut the crap and then talk about 10-50,000 years from now when our continents plates will break away again and no one would recognize what our planet looks like ??
It just seems some of these arguments are only to the individuals likings..
:rolleyes:

ItsMillerTime

11-01-2019, 10:39 AM

Well, if you really cared, you wouldn't create children.

Trust me, this thought crossed my mind many times. It took me a long time to commit to the thought of being a father, but now that my son is here, I wouldn't have changed anything.

You can tell he wifed up an adherent of "fat feminism"
and she's now pregnant with a child who will 'not have a gender forced upon it' and will be given some kind of cringey native american name.

Always lulzy when dudes who finish last think they've finished first.

Your projection of me always makes me laugh. Not that I need to validate anything to your pathetic ass, my wife is a legit 9/10 and guaranteed hotter than any girl you've begged to smash. And nah I ain't posting a picture you fvcking degenerate.

tpols

11-01-2019, 10:41 AM

CelticBaller

11-01-2019, 11:22 AM

qrich

11-01-2019, 11:22 AM

[QUOTE=oh the horror]Hey man we should meet up sometime. Then I can slap the shit out of you in person and post it for ish. Do you ALWAYS have your head up your own ass?

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 11:56 AM

It just seems some of these arguments are only to the individuals likings..
:rolleyes:

The majority of the arguments are pretty ridiculous. There are good arguments for being careful in how we go about addressing climate change... not going overboard... balancing the effects on industry... but arguments about it being a hoax or somehow being unimportant because the planet saw worse 500,000 years ago boggles the mind.

Kblaze8855

11-01-2019, 11:58 AM

Yeah, I read what Kblaze wrote. I, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, disagree.

Just to put a point on something... You think we shouldn't take care to safeguard the planet because we won't know our descendants and people will basically be strangers in a few generations? That's the argument people are going with?

Did you see me dispute any science? Nobody here or anywhere in my personal life has ever seen me say that climate change isn’t happening so I’m not sure which scientists you even think would have a problem with what I said.

I don’t dispute the data or the qualifications of the people who gathered it but me accepting your explanation does not mean I accept that you get to decide what all of humanity does about it.

Scientists are absolutely not immune to hyperbole which is why this community has been acting like it’s an emergency for the last 40 years and will still be calling it one till the day we both die.

You can only say something has to be done right now so many times before it is not a fact that things have to change right now or at least that when you said it in the past you were wrong.

Science rarely gives concrete answers and this like every other kind is forever evolving as we get more information. The many no doubt expert but still alarmist scientists who have been predicting doom in the near future and being wrong over and over have done tremendous damage to the credibility of the more sober types who while no doubt aware that you have to be sensational to get attention still aren’t willing to compromise and bullshit the world about the immediacy of the problem.

People will be crying wolf for hundreds of years. The issues we are facing are not new. It’s a change in time table of the inevitable and it’s perfectly valid science that tells us that too.

Deserts move, ice ages come and go, and there are mass extinctions and on and on it goes.

The world is absolutely going to become less comfortable for people in certain parts of it no matter what we do just like it did for the caveman who had no technology to change anything. Granted.....it’s entirely possible that early man setting fires is why central Australia is now a desert when it used to be a forest....but still.

None of this shit is new. None of it. It’s just new to us because we think on such recent terms.

Have gas talking about the hottest year on record as if we don’t know it was way way hotter long before we had records.

I don’t deny the science. I just check for the rest of it.

You just know that the next forest to become a desert is going to have people with dramatic before and after pictures trying to fool the ignorant into thinking it’s global warming As if you can’t dig down into half the deserts on this planet and find fossils of tree dwelling animals who could only have been in a forest.

Yes it will suck if what we do to the planet destroys a forest and I generally oppose it happening. But for real....there are sea shells in the desert....

All of this shit has happened before and it didn’t need us to do it.

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 12:23 PM

Hey man we should meet up sometime. Then I can slap the shit out of you in person and post it for ish. Do you ALWAYS have your head up your own ass?

“Fear mongering” - look asshole - you SHOULD be afraid. Better that than brazen and stupid.

Bro you literally implied California wild fires are now becoming a thing because of global warming. Like people claiming every time there's a hurricane that it's "because of global warming."

This is on the level of "God is sending disasters to punish us for gay people."

If anyone deserves to have the stupidity slapped out of them for intellectual dishonesty it's you.

Kblaze8855

11-01-2019, 12:28 PM

I would imagine hotter water and extended warm seasons could make the hurricane issue worse. That

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 12:30 PM

Uh yes... I'm sure you're sending all your disposable income to help all the billions of people around the world that already live in terrible conditions amirite? You don't care you just like saying you do...

Yeah, I've actually donated quite a bit of money to non-profits that do work all over the world. You don't know me.

But that's not really the argument here. We're talking about being a good steward of our resources and our environment so that our children and their children can live in the relative comfort we have enjoyed. And make no mistake... climate change is something that will affect the next generation. But we also owe our good stewardship to the generations beyond those we will see. Why would we want our legacy to be one where we are remembered for leaving things worse than we found them... even when we had the opportunity to correct our mistakes and prevent lasting damage. :confusedshrug:

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 12:32 PM

Your projection of me always makes me laugh. Not that I need to validate anything to your pathetic ass, my wife is a legit 9/10 and guaranteed hotter than any girl you've begged to smash. And nah I ain't posting a picture you fvcking degenerate.

Hm. We seem to be making opposing claims.

My evidence is credible scientific data (ask me for links if you'd like) that people further to the left correlate with lower self esteem. This data has been published in both right and left leaning periodicals.

You are CLEARLY a shrill, effeminate soy boy. We don't need any studies for that, everyone on ISH is well aware of that. So we have some pretty concrete data points:

- People on the left are less attractive and lower self esteem.
- You are on the far left (not only economically, but PC culture left. Yikes.)
- Beautiful, intelligent women don't TYPICALLY date limp wristed soy cucks.

Listen, I'm not saying it's impossible. Is it a one in a hundred chance? More like... one in a million. So I'm tellin ya there's a chance!

But the evidence doesn't suggest it. And if you're not willing to post evidence of your version of events, then I'm afraid it is simply not very credible.

Sorry. :(

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 12:33 PM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Except the scientific community is not pushing this bullshit theory that the human race will go extinct. They

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 12:34 PM

I would imagine hotter water and extended warm seasons could make the hurricane issue worse. That’s not an unreasonable stance based on my limited understanding.

This isn't the message you hear after each hurricane though.

You hear a broad and declarative "HOW CAN PEOPLE STILL DENY GLOBAL WARMING!!???"

Simply because a hurricane... happened.

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 12:37 PM

Yeah, I've actually donated quite a bit of money to non-profits that do work all over the world. You don't know me.

But that's not really the argument here. We're talking about being a good steward of our resources and our environment so that our children and their children can live in the relative comfort we have enjoyed. And make no mistake... climate change is something that will affect the next generation. But we also owe our good stewardship to the generations beyond those we will see. Why would we want our legacy to be one where we are remembered for leaving things worse than we found them... even when we had the opportunity to correct our mistakes and prevent lasting damage. :confusedshrug:

So what exactly are you arguing for...?

There are millions of people thinking the way you do. There's a lot more all of you can do, I am sure of that definitively.

Do you think it's more important to focus your time on fighting a political battle? You need to make sure the whole country is forced to agree with you and abide by your personal solutions?

What are you hoping to achieve on the issue by framing global warming through the prism of politics?

Do you want other people to force their religions and worldviews on you in a tangible way? Or do only you get to do that...?

What is your goal with this?

warriorfan

11-01-2019, 12:41 PM

Bro you literally implied California wild fires are now becoming a thing because of global warming. Like people claiming every time there's a hurricane that it's "because of global warming."

This is on the level of "God is sending disasters to punish us for gay people."

If anyone deserves to have the stupidity slapped out of them for intellectual dishonesty it's you.

I thought his post was some sort of bad joke or troll at first..but then in a moment of horror I realized he was being completely serious.

MaxFly

11-01-2019, 12:46 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]All of this shit has happened before and it didn

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 12:52 PM

ItsMillerTime

11-01-2019, 12:53 PM

Hm. We seem to be making opposing claims.

My evidence is credible scientific data (ask me for links if you'd like) that people further to the left correlate with lower self esteem. This data has been published in both right and left leaning periodicals.

You are CLEARLY a shrill, effeminate soy boy. We don't need any studies for that, everyone on ISH is well aware of that. So we have some pretty concrete data points:

- People on the left are less attractive and lower self esteem.
- You are on the far left (not only economically, but PC culture left. Yikes.)
- Beautiful, intelligent women don't TYPICALLY date limp wristed soy cucks.

Listen, I'm not saying it's impossible. Is it a one in a hundred chance? More like... one in a million. So I'm tellin ya there's a chance!

But the evidence doesn't suggest it. And if you're not willing to post evidence of your version of events, then I'm afraid it is simply not very credible.

Sorry. :(

I literally have nothing to prove to you. I don't give a shit about the opinions of a random 30 year old loser living off his parents. Just know that deep down, you're a bottom feeder of society and I'm out here doing big things. Stay mad. :pimp:

Kblaze8855

11-01-2019, 01:01 PM

Scientists are saying that we've hastened and exacerbated changes in climate... that we have very much contributed to climate change. Very, very few scientists are saying, "meh... all of this happened before and it didn't need us to do it." Yes, this has happened before, but we see our roll in it in this particular instance and have the ability to address it. Very, very few scientists are saying that their warnings and concerns about climate change and global warming are overblown or irrelevant.

The raw data and being alarmed about it are not one and the same. You dont have to dismiss the first to have a different stance on the second.

The scientists gather data...interpret it for those of us who arent gonna put in the work learning what it all means.

At after that point....the larger philosophical questions on our duty to the future and how serious to take the fact that our existence changes the planet...they have no more right to the answers than the rest of us.

The science tells me....the world has been and will be more extreme than humanity has seen it in our brief time here. Knowing that fact....that we arent talking about doing anything outside whats likely to happen anyway....

The discussion comes to how much effort should go towards altering the timeline of the inevitable when there are problems to face with more immediate solutions.

The climate changing is death. We cant prevent it.

You advocate for humanity to eat better and jog to put it off.

I cant rationally oppose that suggestion.

But before we focus on buying a treadmill perhaps we should do something about that murderer kicking in the door.

You are right to suggest we do what we can for a cleaner world. Nobody with a brain wants shit in the air and dead baby seals and all that.

But compared to the pressing day to day issues? You gotta see how it falls behind.

If I had to pick for our nation to focus on global warming or finding a way to actually educate children better instead of spending more money just to say you did....im backing education.

Im backing tax reform....im backing health care and figuring out what we can do by reclaiming a lot of the defense spending we likely dont need.

When all thats taken care of....talk to me about a gym membership.

Nobody(well...not me) is disputing its best to help the natural world. But its not at the top of my list when I know(from other scientists) that so many of the concerns are just a matter of when. Not if.

Loco 50

11-01-2019, 01:20 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
Scientists are absolutely not immune to hyperbole which is why this community has been acting like it

Loco 50

11-01-2019, 01:52 PM

Medical doctors once commonly believed leeches cure disease.

I know you are unable to comprehend scientific papers, so I'll let you know this was published in 2017.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5741396/

Expert astronomers once commonly believed the universe was static.

Experienced explorers once commonly believed America was India.

Physicists are constantly redefining the components of the atom.

Limitations in all these realms were because we didn't have the ability to properly observe our surroundings. As we improve our observation techniques our knowledge becomes more accurate.

Science is great but any rational person should combine public information with their own intuition when drawing conclusions, and not just blindly assume the current theories are automatically true because an authority has stated it.

"But muh scientist said...!"
You are not rational. You are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence."

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

You stated c02 emissions from animals breathing contributes to carbon emissions. :facepalm

No, read the carbon cycle. It's the methane from cattle that is largely the issue.

You stated the legislature has to be profound. :facepalm

No, it must simply amend current practices. Life is not 0 to 100%, there is an in-between for rational folk.

You try to argue that driving a car makes someone a hypocrite. :facepalm

This is like accusing someone of hypocrisy for allowing jaywalking but prosecuting the murderer; I mean they clearly don't care about the law if they don't care about jaywalking, right?

Once again, you're too dumb or lazy to actually understand what you're arguing, but you'll still spend hours on here doing it.

Meanwhile, you project your shortcomings onto other posters. You are a psychological/psychiatric goldmine.:cheers:

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 02:10 PM

You stated c02 emissions from animals contribute to carbon emissions.

No, read the carbon cycle.

If I got one detail wrong in the broad picture, I will gladly admit it.

The point remains, Your Dog is Ruining the Environment. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43bjmw/your-dog-is-ruining-the-environment)

Do you care to dispute Gregory Okin, UCLA Geography professor and author of a recent study into the environmental impact of pets. aka Science Man!?

In fact, little Flappy’s food is the main concern when it comes to environmental devastation—specifically, all those lovely wet chunks of jellied cow fat and pulverized chicken face. According to Gregory’s study, meat eaten by pets creates the equivalent of about 64 million tons of CO2 a year, which has about the same environmental impact as a year's amount of fumes from 13.6 million cars. :(

Let me guess... you have a dog?

You stated the legislature has to be profound. :facepalm

No, it must simply amend current practices.

:roll:

"It doesn't have to be profound... it just has to... legally change what people are allowed to do!"

Like, do you think you made a point with that statement?? Who decides what profound is? Until every climate alarmist has given up meat, pets, and cars, SHUT. THE. ****. UP.

You try to argue that driving a car makes someone a hypocrite.

This is like accusing someone of hypocrisy for allowing jaywalking but prosecuting the murderer; I mean they clearly don't care about the law if they don't care about jaywalking, right?

Garbage analogy from a pretentious fop. :facepalm

Bro, I get it. Global warming and other topics where you can legislate your ethics on others makes you feel smart and superior, and boosts your appearance of social value. Since youre devoid of traditionally admired characteristics.

You're not funny. You're not athletic. You're not interesting. You're not good looking. You're not successful. Etc. etc.

So you've gotta lecture everyone on why they're bad and you're good. Orange man bad! Climate deniers bad! Rich man bad! I'm gonna make Govt go after all them! :blah :blah

Go ahead. Dispute the shit I posted about pets. Then tell me if you think ownership of pets and cars should be 'amended' by the government. Not profoundly changed, but just... "amended." Then tell me why you get to decide how they're amended and not everyone else with an opinion.

CelticBaller

11-01-2019, 02:23 PM

Who here is pushing the notion that mankind will go extinct? I may have missed another poster's post, but I haven't seen that.

The fact that there are some people who will go too far in their assessment doesn't negate the serious nature of climate change.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address%3famp

Literally the number one person pushing the new green deal is telling these sheep the world will end in a decade or so :facepalm

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 02:24 PM

[quote]

If we put those statistics into human terms, cats and dogs are responsible for up to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat-eating in America. [B]And let's not forget all that dog shit you have to pick up; in America, pets produce about 5.1 million tons of feces every year

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 02:26 PM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address%3famp

Literally the number one person pushing the new green deal is telling these sheep the world will end in a decade or so :facepalm

I'll post a quote from the article so these dudes can see exactly whom they're supporting/agreeing with.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost..

During an interview at the MLK Now event in New York City honoring Martin Luther King Jr., Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Ta-Nehisi Coates that younger Americans are looking for bold solutions to climate change, and are not concerned about the cost.

:lol

Gee, there's a surprise. Young people who don't work are buying the dogma and aren't concerned about the cost.

More. At. 11.

Loco 50

11-01-2019, 05:02 PM

If I got one detail wrong in the broad picture, I will gladly admit it.

If it were one detail I'd let it ride. You are a leaky garbage can of misinformation contaminating everything you touch. So much so that it's impossible to clean up after you.

The point remains, Your Dog is Ruining the Environment. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43bjmw/your-dog-is-ruining-the-environment)

Do you care to dispute Gregory Okin, UCLA Geography professor and author of a recent study into the environmental impact of pets. aka Science Man!?

Once again you show that you have problems with both writing and reading comprehension.
You wrote this:
[/QUOTE]

There are 180,000,000 cats and dogs in America exhaling carbon dioxide. Is that necessary?

This is silly. Exhaled carbon has ****all to do with problematic carbon emissions.

2nd, read your article. The problems addressed are associated with:

A.) the carbon (methane) emissions associated with the meat required to feed these pets.

b.) the fact that people think that dogs, omnivores, need a meat based diet in the first place.

These are easily addressed and they're addressed in the article. Change the pet's diet to a plant based diet and the manure becomes little more than beneficial fertilizer.

Your article is a pop culture article stating the problems with owning a pet varying from bacterial contamination to carbon footprint and you tried to use it as an argument that people are hypocrites again. Are research articles too taxing on you?

"It doesn't have to be profound... it just has to... legally change what people are allowed to do!"

Like, do you think you made a point with that statement?? Who decides what profound is? Until every climate alarmist has given up meat, pets, and cars, SHUT. THE. ****. UP.

Why do you feel you like you are owed a full write-up on every topic? You give nothing but lazy, uniformed opinion and expect others to write up dissertations. Also, why are you so angry? :oldlol:

Profound in my mind would be expecting to go from our current fuel efficiency to 100 percent efficiency as we burn it.

Don't need 100% need improvement.

Profound is zero plastic. Don't need zero. Need reduced.

Reduced emissions.

Reduced fossil fuel consumption.

It's not a difficult concept. You are not worth even this amount of effort and you're not getting more.

Bro, I get it. Global warming and other topics where you can legislate your ethics on others makes you feel smart and superior, and boosts your appearance of social value. Since youre devoid of traditionally admired characteristics.

You're not funny. You're not athletic. You're not interesting. You're not good looking. You're not successful. Etc. etc.

This is fascinating for the fact that you don't realize you are doing it. This is you projecting your desired characteristics and your anger at not achieving your goals. I'm good, bro.

So you've gotta lecture everyone on why they're bad and you're good. Orange man bad! Climate deniers bad! Rich man bad! I'm gonna make Govt go after all them! :blah :blah

Who lectures who on here? You write pages of empty blather.

Go ahead. Dispute the shit I posted about pets. Then tell me if you think ownership of pets and cars should be 'amended' by the government. Not profoundly changed, but just... "amended." Then tell me why you get to decide how they're amended and not everyone else with an opinion.
Already easily addressed. Change their diet. Improve fuel efficiency. Continue developing alternative fuel sources. Continue to reward carpooling. Reduce urban sprawl.

Ideally we continue to improve our batteries storing potential for storing solar energy. Musk has made significant inroads into these areas. If we could somehow harness wind power that will be a significant breakthrough as well.

All it takes is scientific inquisitiveness instead of whatever it is that you think you are providing.

My opinion, all you provide is verbal diarrhea. A similarity you share with your hero Trump.

You've used up all the time you're gonna get from me today.

FultzNationRISE

11-01-2019, 05:21 PM

If it were one detail I'd let it ride. You are a leaky garbage can of misinformation contaminating everything you touch. So much so that it's impossible to clean up after you.

Once again you show that you have problems with both writing and reading comprehension.
You wrote this:

This is silly. Exhaled carbon has ****all to do with problematic carbon emissions.

2nd, read your article. The problems addressed are associated with:

A.) the carbon (methane) emissions associated with the meat required to feed these pets.

b.) the fact that people think that dogs, omnivores, need a meat based diet in the first place.

These are easily addressed and they're addressed in the article. Change the pet's diet to a plant based diet and the manure becomes little more than beneficial fertilizer.

Your article is a pop culture article stating the problems with owning a pet varying from bacterial contamination to carbon footprint and you tried to use it as an argument that people are hypocrites again. Are research articles too taxing on you?

Why do you feel you like you are owed a full write-up on every topic? You give nothing but lazy, uniformed opinion and expect others to write up dissertations. Also, why are you so angry? :oldlol:

Profound in my mind would be expecting to go from our current fuel efficiency to 100 percent efficiency as we burn it.

Don't need 100% need improvement.

Profound is zero plastic. Don't need zero. Need reduced.

Reduced emissions.

Reduced fossil fuel consumption.

It's not a difficult concept. You are not worth even this amount of effort and you're not getting more.

This is fascinating for the fact that you don't realize you are doing it. This is you projecting your desired characteristics and your anger at not achieving your goals. I'm good, bro.

Who lectures who on here? You write pages of empty blather.

Already easily addressed. Change their diet. Improve fuel efficiency. Continue developing alternative fuel sources. Continue to reward carpooling. Reduce urban sprawl.

Ideally we continue to improve our batteries storing potential for storing solar energy. Musk has made significant inroads into these areas. If we could somehow harness wind power that will be a significant breakthrough as well.

All it takes is scientific inquisitiveness instead of whatever it is that you think you are providing.

My opinion, all you provide is verbal diarrhea. A similarity you share with your hero Trump.

You've used up all the time you're gonna get from me today.

I already admitted to having misspoke about the exhaled carbon, it seems you want to hone in on that to deflect from what youre unwilling to address.

(As an aside, what is “pop science?” Isnt something either valid or not? Why are you trying to dismiss science because it conflicts with your agenda?)

Okay, so we’re going to “reduce” the amount of animal products in pet food. We still have to put some in there. We have to process it. Package it up in plastic. Ship it around in big trucks. Keep the lights on in the pet food aisle.

Then we gotta scoop up that poop every day in plastic bags. Or let it seep into the groundwater. 180,000,000 pets in America require this attention EVERY DAY.

Why dont we just ban pets instead? I dont own a pet, so Id be 100% down with that.

You dont wanna make that sacrifice, but you wanna tell others what they have to sacrifice financially or materially. BY LAW.

:oldlol: Youre a fool and a hypocrite.

bladefd

11-02-2019, 03:01 AM

The world was coming out of an ice age as humanity evolved, the sea used to be higher than it is now and it will be again with or without us, acid rain used to be so bad it dissolved rocks, 90% of sea creatures have died at least twice long before humans existed, the Sahara went from a grassland to a desert without human intervention inside the last 10 thousand years, the same shit that killed the ocean creatures killed most of the river ones too several times in history, and the vast majority of fresh water is used for agriculture to feed humanity and live stock....that shortage is mostly an issue of too many people not our treatment of the environment. And most of the places with extreme droughts got that way due to changes that long predate humanity. Humans dirty the fresh water with bad practices in poor areas. But you are hardly gonna get poor people in india to stop pissing in the Ganges or people in Liberia to stop digging lattrines near water. These are issues of poverty and infrastructure damaged by conflict not solved by any green policies in the first world. Cholera long predates the industrial revolution.

You are complaining about issues of the natural world which is ever changing. Can we accelerate it or change the timelines of inevitable things? If the scientists say so im inclined to accept its happening. But other scientists have told us enough of the worlds history to know that its natural changes have been far more extreme than anything humanity has existed to experience.

We are here for blinks of an eye and seek to keep the entire ever shifting planet in the form we find it because its comfortable where we happen to be sitting?

Guess what?

Comfortable here is shitty somewhere else. Think the people freezing in Siberia dont want some of that downright comfortable warmth they had as recently as 1500 years ago? That the people in the many deserts that used to be forests dont wish for a return to the climate of 40,000 years ago?

If theres one thing we know....its that change will **** up one place and help out another.

If America ends up a vast desert wasteland as north Africa gets a break it would no doubt be considered a disaster by the people in America....while the people in Libya are happy its not 124 degrees anymore. If you could live forever you would come to find none of the concerns you raise are really avoidable....we only alter the timetable of things that happen now and then with or without us.

Every forest will dry up, every river will run dry, a bad plankton boom will eventually wipe out 70% of the sea, and on and on it goes.

"Our children" will have essentially the same lives we do. So will their children. And many many many more generations.

But in time....the world will change. A lot. With or without our input. Your descendants will face issues we cant even wrap our heads around and putting up with climate cavemen survived more extreme versions of wont stop them. They wont even realize anything changed. Nobody in a desert now gives a **** it used to be a grassland or a rain forest. Its been a desert long as anyone they ever heard of remembers.

The people youre worried about 2400 years from now wont even see whatever world they have as unusual.

You wanna help...help the people we can reach through direct aid individually and as wealthy nations. You can help get that done.

You cant do shit for the people of 3654 who might have a beach in Kentucky.

They wont even care its there. It will have always been there from their perspective. And there will be a booming boat touring industry seeing the sunken ruins of old coastal cities who will have lost exactly zero people as the sea encroached because it took 290 years to reach ankle level a mile from what used to be the coast.

Worry about tomorrow. You really cant do shit for the people who will be dealing with any climate we couldnt easily adapt to. The people youre trying to help wont have a lifestyle you can even recognize.

You will be to them what the Sumerians are to us. They are not your children and they will not need your input to get by.

No, it is not for people in 2,000 years. I was talking in the order of 50 years, 100 years. Hell, climate change impacts people on even smaller scales like today. Just look around you. Summers are hotter, longer and drier in places like India and most of the African continent. Seasonal patterns have shifted significantly in the past decade already.

One of the responses to this climate change phenomena is to change people's practices, improve soil sustainability for agriculture, use less land for farm animals & lower methane release, waste less food, grow & eat local rather than transport everything thousands of miles polluting the atmosphere, replace dirty sources of energy like coal/oil with clean energy ala solar/wind/nuclear/biomass/hydro, etc. Convince people to care more about mother nature and do their part on individual level, local if company, national if corporation. Bring awareness to them and their actions. There is much we can do to help the environment. Plant lots of trees to help replenish the Amazon or Southeast Asia. Green policies can create jobs, change practices, and inspire future generations to care about the planet they call home. You are wrong when you say it's a problem of poverty or infrastructure and we can't fix it with green policies. There is much work to be done and much we can do.

Yes, changes have been happening on Earth through time. This time, we have led changes in greenhouse gas emissions. We humans have led that so we are the shepherds of our planet this time around. We must protect our world rather than continue to let it become a dumpster fire.

Who gives a sh!t if we are here for a blink of an eye? You don't think I know that? So what? How is that relevant here? Is that your excuse for why we should dump our trash and pollute wherever we feel like it?

I am a straight shooter, and here's what I think. You have no argument. You have nothing. Your argument is filled with enough holes that I don't even know how you were able to inflate it so much nonsense. Frankly, I am disappointed. I expected more coming from you than some poster like fultznation or pattychew.

bladefd

11-02-2019, 03:23 AM

The raw data and being alarmed about it are not one and the same. You dont have to dismiss the first to have a different stance on the second.

The scientists gather data...interpret it for those of us who arent gonna put in the work learning what it all means.

At after that point....the larger philosophical questions on our duty to the future and how serious to take the fact that our existence changes the planet...they have no more right to the answers than the rest of us.

The science tells me....the world has been and will be more extreme than humanity has seen it in our brief time here. Knowing that fact....that we arent talking about doing anything outside whats likely to happen anyway....

The discussion comes to how much effort should go towards altering the timeline of the inevitable when there are problems to face with more immediate solutions.

The climate changing is death. We cant prevent it.

You advocate for humanity to eat better and jog to put it off.

I cant rationally oppose that suggestion.

But before we focus on buying a treadmill perhaps we should do something about that murderer kicking in the door.

You are right to suggest we do what we can for a cleaner world. Nobody with a brain wants shit in the air and dead baby seals and all that.

But compared to the pressing day to day issues? You gotta see how it falls behind.

If I had to pick for our nation to focus on global warming or finding a way to actually educate children better instead of spending more money just to say you did....im backing education.

Im backing tax reform....im backing health care and figuring out what we can do by reclaiming a lot of the defense spending we likely dont need.

When all thats taken care of....talk to me about a gym membership.

Nobody(well...not me) is disputing its best to help the natural world. But its not at the top of my list when I know(from other scientists) that so many of the concerns are just a matter of when. Not if.

You sound exactly like one of those people who ask "Why are we spending money in space when we have issues down here? There is plenty of money, people and resources to do multiple things. We don't have to solve one issue before taking on another. We have 7.5 billion people and plenty of issues (global warming and its many related issues is probably a top 10 issue).

As for your initial point.. Data does matter. Why should we give equal right to someone's argument not based on any data as someone who researches & has data to substantiate his argument?

bladefd

11-02-2019, 03:27 AM

CelticBaller

11-02-2019, 07:39 AM

Complete rubbish. No legit scientist with credibility has said global warming/climate change will end the world, let alone in 10 years. It's a right-wing talking point used by folks like Bill O'Reilly or Rush Bimbo or someone.
AOC literally says that :facepalm

The same people who talk to the scientist and ya trust to tell you the truth :facepalm

ILLsmak

11-02-2019, 08:35 AM

You sound exactly like one of those people who ask "Why are we spending money in space when we have issues down here? There is plenty of money, people and resources to do multiple things. We don't have to solve one issue before taking on another. We have 7.5 billion people and plenty of issues (global warming and its many related issues is probably a top 10 issue).

As for your initial point.. Data does matter. Why should we give equal right to someone's argument not based on any data as someone who researches & has data to substantiate his argument?

It's really just balancing it. There are a lot of things we are doing that are ****ing things up. I agree w/ kblaze mostly. The world isn't gonna end. And yea habitable places might change at some point, but probably not in our lifetime. It's weird, as I've said before, scientists love making predictions that are like 50-100 years which is basically like... just outside of their lifetime. haha.

Are we seeing some wild shit, weather wise? Yea... are we having a bunch of crazy diseases, yeah. Are we dumping nuke waste into the ocean... oil, etc, yeah. We aren't taking care of the earth, but the earth is resilient.

People need to care. You can't legislate shit that is gonna make change imo. You have to make people value the earth and maybe that will come when shit actually hits the fan. The idea that we're gonna push the earth to the brink and it's just gonna keep getting worse until we all are extinct, to me, is pretty garbage, but we need a wake up call. Unfortunately, the ones doing a lot of this shit are people who are the least affected by it... big ass industrial companies, they could give a **** what happens to people in hurricanes or floods or mudslides, whatever. They probably welcome the thinning of population.

If I thought there was a way to save animals and the earth, I would do it, altho I gotta say I disagree with a lot of people on some unsolvable problems, like feral animals. I'd like to save everything. I don't think it's bad that feral cats eat birds, for instance. That's their nature; that's the world working as intended. There are just so many little things we all need to do, and if we all did our part, it would work out, really...

But the thing is nobody wants to do their part, even the people on TV talking about it, and they just wanna enact some rules that probably aren't going to do shit. I mean, even if they do stop one impending crisis, we are still treating the earth like shit on a grand scale so there will be another.

In summary: take our lumps in terms of the earth's natural fluctuations; take care of the earth where we can. But the way shit swings, like w/ ice ages and all, it's going to swing far enough that the world becomes a bit unbearable for the people who make decisions, and then we will fix it, hopefully. I have great faith in the earth's ability to heal itself, if we give it a chance.

-Smak

CelticBaller

11-02-2019, 10:46 AM

I'll post a quote from the article so these dudes can see exactly whom they're supporting/agreeing with.

:lol

Gee, there's a surprise. Young people who don't work are buying the dogma and aren't concerned about the cost.

More. At. 11.
Lmao good call quoting the article. Dudes really don’t click links here :lol

bladefd

11-02-2019, 12:59 PM

AOC literally says that :facepalm

The same people who talk to the scientist and ya trust to tell you the truth :facepalm

AOC is not a scientist.

Loco 50

11-02-2019, 02:29 PM

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]I already admitted to having misspoke about the exhaled carbon, it seems you want to hone in on that to deflect from what youre unwilling to address.

(As an aside, what is

Loco 50

11-02-2019, 02:31 PM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Lmao good call quoting the article. Dudes really don

nathanjizzle

11-02-2019, 03:24 PM

OP really exposed them on this one.

MaxFly

11-02-2019, 11:47 PM

MaxFly

11-03-2019, 12:07 AM

Do you think it's more important to focus your time on fighting a political battle? You need to make sure the whole country is forced to agree with you and abide by your personal solutions?

Climate change is an issue that requires worldwide agreement and action to effectively address, and because it requires the implementation of policy, there are going to be political fights about it.

There were political fights about dumping chemicals into rivers and streams. There were political fights about the health effects of smoking. As long as there are debates about policy with people on either side and in between, there will be political battles. :confusedshrug:

MaxFly

11-03-2019, 12:42 AM

Kblaze8855

11-03-2019, 07:27 AM

Find me the influential people talking about this issue in terms of “Maybe we should” and “We need to cut back on....” and you might have a point about them not being alarmist. But that isn’t the take. A democrat talking like that would be accused by others of not taking it serious. The rhetoric is “Change or die” and we must acknowledge it as an emergency and on and on. These people know that a sober rational take is going to be ignored. When it was simply scientists offering raw data decades ago it was almost never like this. You can read the reports now on how scientists didn’t even want to be involved in the political side and wanted only to be left alone to do the work and the few who did try to scare the public got ridiculed by others saying that’s not the place of people presenting a dispassionate take on the data.

Even The guys who are considered more moderate have takes along these lines:

The point is this is really important, and it’s within our power… We need leaders who understand this is the most urgent priority facing the nation

“Urgent” is in just about all of them. You can watch Biden point out that he said it was urgent and we would lose all we had soon....in 1987.

The “We don’t have long!” crowd is literally 35-40 years in and 50 years from now are going to be saying the same thing. It’s obvious that “urgent” doesn’t really mean urgent because it’s an issue of very gradual change that when we say is speeding up....means as compared to the thousands of years it’s expected to take naturally.

But you know what doesn’t work in politics? Giving vague threats about a relatively distant future. So you have people trying to get specific and tie things we can see to it(things that have happened for all of history) and merely claim they will get worse....by some unknown amount....by some unclear date.

The vagueness is necessary for two reasons. The first reason is everyone trying to be specific about it in the past already looks like an alarmist moron. The second is....nobody genuinely knows. There is no point at which it’s “Well....the climate just changed...nice job folks....now you can’t go outside.”

It’s all vague. It’s an issue of shifting comforts and moving sweet spots on the planet. What it is not....is a loaded gun pointed at our planet. And I’ve heard those exact words from elected officials.

The greatest enemy of the climate change agenda making progress is the non scientists trying to scare people who then roll their eyes because nothing happens. Attributing every natural disaster or power line caused wildfire to it does not help.

People out here getting cancer and not being able to get treatments which can save them. I’ve known the people. My mom was one. Luckily I make just enough I was able to nearly go broke to help. We have people acting like the most urgent issue is the climate when millions are dying from treatable conditions and getting addicted to drugs and becoming smokers as children.

If you could snap your finger and get the world to accept climate change and pass the laws you wish or get every starving child reliable healthy meals and clean water it shouldn’t even be a question which is most “urgent”.

The development of dwarf wheat did more to save lives on this planet than almost anything in human history short of learning about pasteurization.

Healthcare and poverty are far more urgent issues than anything that’s gonna take decades to thousands of years to result in a non descript different world on which humans will be just fine and still have medical issues and standing water drawing mosquitos that carry malaria next to daycares.

Realizing that people draw the same conclusion you get even more alarmist people trying to tie climate change into literally every other issue to make fixing it an all encompassing fix all for everything from healthcare to the economy.

We get more and more down the path away from the data and into politics and it’s the politicians with the platform....and the politicians making so many people think it’s one big joke.

This isn’t a doctor saying eat a salad. It’s Snake oil salesmen out for a profit saying drinking this salad derived elixir will fix all your problems and get you a new job.

The politics got into the science and made otherwise reasonable people who might hear it out take sides and root against science because of who is twisting it to fit an agenda.

It shouldn’t be a partisan issue but now it is. Which makes it fall prey to idiots in politics who have to pander and alarm to win primaries then walk it back a bit to govern in a country half filled with people they annoyed going so extreme to get the nomination to begin with.

The politicians are the problem.

Not the doctor.

MaxFly

11-03-2019, 11:32 AM

When John Barrasso, a Republican from oil and uranium-rich Wyoming who has spent years blocking climate change legislation, introduced a bill this year to promote nuclear energy, he added a twist: a desire to tackle global warming.

[QUOTE]In recent weeks Senator John Cornyn of Texas

MaxFly

11-03-2019, 12:15 PM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]If you could snap your finger and get the world to accept climate change and pass the laws you wish or get every starving child reliable healthy meals and clean water it shouldn

ILLsmak

11-03-2019, 01:37 PM

it's a good thing we all know nothing is gonna change, so we can see how it all plays out.

-Smak

bladefd

11-03-2019, 01:50 PM

1)Find me the influential people talking about this issue in terms of “Maybe we should” and “We need to cut back on....” and you might have a point about them not being alarmist. But that isn’t the take. A democrat talking like that would be accused by others of not taking it serious. The rhetoric is “Change or die” and we must acknowledge it as an emergency and on and on. These people know that a sober rational take is going to be ignored. When it was simply scientists offering raw data decades ago it was almost never like this. You can read the reports now on how scientists didn’t even want to be involved in the political side and wanted only to be left alone to do the work and the few who did try to scare the public got ridiculed by others saying that’s not the place of people presenting a dispassionate take on the data.

Even The guys who are considered more moderate have takes along these lines:

2) People out here getting cancer and not being able to get treatments which can save them. I’ve known the people. My mom was one. Luckily I make just enough I was able to nearly go broke to help. We have people acting like the most urgent issue is the climate when millions are dying from treatable conditions and getting addicted to drugs and becoming smokers as children.

If you could snap your finger and get the world to accept climate change and pass the laws you wish or get every starving child reliable healthy meals and clean water it shouldn’t even be a question which is most “urgent”.

3) Realizing that people draw the same conclusion you get even more alarmist people trying to tie climate change into literally every other issue to make fixing it an all encompassing fix all for everything from healthcare to the economy.

We get more and more down the path away from the data and into politics and it’s the politicians with the platform....and the politicians making so many people think it’s one big joke.

This isn’t a doctor saying eat a salad. It’s Snake oil salesmen out for a profit saying drinking this salad derived elixir will fix all your problems and get you a new job.

The politics got into the science and made otherwise reasonable people who might hear it out take sides and root against science because of who is twisting it to fit an agenda.

It shouldn’t be a partisan issue but now it is. Which makes it fall prey to idiots in politics who have to pander and alarm to win primaries then walk it back a bit to govern in a country half filled with people they annoyed going so extreme to get the nomination to begin with.

The politicians are the problem.

Not the doctor.

1) I won't get into the politician aspect because I don't disagree. Politicians goal is to create fear and to rile up their followers. Don't take scientific advice from a politician.

2) There are certainly bigger issues than climate change. I don't think anyone disputes that except maybe a politician or two. Again, politicians are not scientists.

3) There is much more interconnectedness between climate change and other issues like health and economy and infrastructure than you realize. Couple years ago, I did volunteer work for this environment organization concerning climate change. For that, I had to read the entire report (https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-5) and make a summary of important points. There were so many issues that could be attributed to climate change and many issues analyzed as to how they were related and expected to get worse over time. The more I read, the more troubling it became. This coming not from some random politician but actual scientists and field anthropologists. So you are wrong. In fact, you could not be any more wrong trying to distance climate change from say health care or the economy. They can be linked in more ways than you may realize.

One example - mosquitoes carry so many diseases as you know. A small increase in temperature and humidity can help breed millions and millions more mosquitoes and their breeding patterns can shift as seasonal patterns shift. It could even extend their breeding seasons and extend their impact areas, affecting more people as diseases spread further out. This is not a novel concept. It's just one simple example of many where health and climate change are interrelated and just considering one sector.

Kblaze8855

11-03-2019, 03:13 PM

It should be pointed out that there's a significant overlap in the crowd who believes climate change is a hoax and those who don't think government should be involved in any way in getting starving children reliably healthy meals and clean water. If we could snap our fingers, many of the same people would seek to intervene to stop both initiatives.

The United States of America, and the world as a whole, face a number of urgent dilemmas, but we have historically been able to work on multiple things at a time. We don't halt national initiatives around cancer research to address childhood hunger; we work to address both. We don't halt national initiatives around clean water and minimizing dumping and pollution to address education gaps and underfunded schools; we work to address both.

When NASA says..

...and they link it to man made actions contributing to climate change, we can work on this and other urgent matters.

Two issues....

We already are working on the climate change issue and have been moving towards the environment in general for like 50 years. An America with the old rules would be worth making a big deal of. A great deal of the world has been working on it.....we just call it an emergency to try to get them to pick up the pace. Nothing gets halted. Not even with the jackass we currently have in charge of the federal agencies. He does his best to roll it back but the America of today wont accept the old ways.

America is currently dealing with the climate issue...just not to your liking. Im not sure how much more seriously it should be taken but I know its not issue #1 which many politicians would tell you.

Other issue...

Impermanence.

And this one is even an issue with the scientific community. Or maybe better with how they choose to explain changes to people they know arent gonna pay attention. They dumb things down...and I understand the need to do that. But even in the NASA thing you quoted....so much of it is just an issue of the world never staying one way and us feeling the "right" way is what we know. Yes....im old enough to remember getting a LOT more snow in the winter especially when id be down south for holidays. THere are pics of me as a kid with snow over my head in South carolina. It NEVER snows more than a couple inches these days. I recognize the change. And living such a short life as a human I feel like how it was....is how its "supposed" to be. But there isnt really a "supposed". Only a reality tinted by our experiences.

When they mention risks to the great lakes its a perfect example of what I mean.

The entirely of human memory and record has the great lakes. A "risk" to them sounds serious(not that its outlined what that even means).

But the great lakes were CREATED by global warming.

The Great lakes are melt water from the ending of the last ice age when glaciers were down to like...Ohio.

And it clearly wasnt the fault of the early humans.

Global warming is the creator and now the risk to things we hold dear.

It really exemplifies my basic problem with the idea that these things are some major emergency.

The whole basis is....the way things are(or were in recent human memory) is the way its supposed to be.

But there is no "supposed". There is no way....that stays.

If you wiped humans out tomorrow glaciers would come and go and the sea level would rise and fall by huge levels without us. Changing the timeline of the inevitable is what we are talking about. And im not sure how much effort thats worth when its already on our list of things being worked on.

You apparently want it moved up the list. Im....maybe ok with some increases. But I gotta put a cap eventually on an issue of an ever changing world that does it no matter what we do.

Now...you want funding to build a star trek like world weather controlling system? Ok. When thats feasible pour trillions down that hole with my blessing. When we are talking about forces beyond our control which nature absolutely is at the moment?

Just...do better. We are doing better now. We could do even better...but im not making it the top thing on the list.

Rocket

11-04-2019, 01:11 AM

:no: Anyone truly alarmed by the "climate change" hysteria should immediately cut their carbon footprint by turning off their electricity as well as parking their car in lieu of a bicycle or good old fashioned walking. With every single key stroke they make on their computer they are killing the planet. No more ISH for these people. :roll:

FultzNationRISE

11-04-2019, 01:32 AM

One example - mosquitoes carry so many diseases as you know. A small increase in temperature and humidity can help breed millions and millions more mosquitoes and their breeding patterns can shift as seasonal patterns shift. It could even extend their breeding seasons and extend their impact areas, affecting more people as diseases spread further out. This is not a novel concept. It's just one simple example of many where health and climate change are interrelated and just considering one sector.

In which parts of the world will this have the most dramatic impact?

Areas reproducing the most quickly? Areas where development is threatening to kill off species by the boatload?

:confusedshrug:

CelticBaller

11-04-2019, 10:41 AM

AOC is not a scientist.
Scientist are not the ones publicly pushing the agenda and using climate change to have more control over corporations. Politicians like AOC are

If you people want everyone to take the scientist seriously, don

CelticBaller

11-04-2019, 10:43 AM

Yeah, I don't think she meant that everyone will die off in 12 years.

But even then, no one here is saying that we'll be extinct soon.
And? None of you guys are pushing this fear into the public. These politicians pushing the narrative that were in some doomsday scenario is why no one takes it seriously

bladefd

11-04-2019, 07:56 PM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Scientist are not the ones publicly pushing the agenda and using climate change to have more control over corporations. Politicians like AOC are

If you people want everyone to take the scientist seriously, don

MaxFly

11-04-2019, 08:02 PM

Two issues....

We already are working on the climate change issue and have been moving towards the environment in general for like 50 years. An America with the old rules would be worth making a big deal of. A great deal of the world has been working on it.....we just call it an emergency to try to get them to pick up the pace. Nothing gets halted. Not even with the jackass we currently have in charge of the federal agencies. He does his best to roll it back but the America of today wont accept the old ways.

This is a joke, right? You're pulling my leg. We pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and we've rolled back a significant number of environmental regulations affecting clean air and water specifically, and climate change in general. We just blew up the CAFE standards the government and major car manufacturers had agreed to back in 2011. China is now lapping us in clean energy adoption and implementation, as is much of Europe. Sure, we're moving forward, but not nearly at the speed and scale at which we should be expanding. We are way behind where we should be.

It's not about what is to my liking. It is about what we can objectively say is a concerted effort by the oil lobby and other special interests to roll back, slow down and completely stop environmentally friendly efforts.

Impermanence.

Scientists are saying that long standing climates will change and the planet will warm as a direct result of our contributions, irrespective of normal, expected changes. We know this will have a deleterious effect on the lives and well being of many people. They actually haven't had to simplify the core issue because it is pretty simple. What isn't simple is the multitude of ways those changes will affect us. This is not a "when I was younger, it used to snow more" discussion. This is a "when I was younger, we had fewer droughts, mosquito infestations, wildfires, and CAT 5 hurricanes" discussion.

MaxFly

11-05-2019, 11:50 PM

Alarmists... right on time.

[QUOTE]More than 11,000 scientists declare a "climate emergency" (https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/more-than-11000-scientists-declare-a-climate-emergency/ar-AAJTSZr)

Humanity is on track to face "untold suffering" if we continue our current climate change trajectory. A new study, signed by more than 11,000 scientists from around the world, marks the first time a large group of scientists has said the Earth is facing a "climate emergency" caused predominantly by human activities.

In the study, published Tuesday in the journal BioScience, scientists no longer mince words when it comes to talking about the climate crisis, preferring instead to "tell it like it is." They declare, "clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency," which threatens every part of our ecosystem.

"We have joined together to declare a climate emergency because the climate change is more severe and accelerating faster than was expected by scientists," Bill Ripple, professor of ecology at Oregon State University and co-author of the paper, told CNET. "Many of us feel like the time is running out for us to act."

Scientists say we are not acting fast enough.

"Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament," scientists said.

Relying on global surface temperature change alone does not fully encompass the scope of the dangers currently facing humanity. The research shows a concerning, albeit unsurprising trend

Patrick Chewing

11-05-2019, 11:58 PM

https://media1.tenor.com/images/27a8cb2769c900df05c6ae9e8e26b098/tenor.gif

Kblaze8855

11-06-2019, 06:56 AM

This is a joke, right? You're pulling my leg. We pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and we've rolled back a significant number of environmental regulations affecting clean air and water specifically, and climate change in general. We just blew up the CAFE standards the government and major car manufacturers had agreed to back in 2011. China is now lapping us in clean energy adoption and implementation, as is much of Europe. Sure, we're moving forward, but not nearly at the speed and scale at which we should be expanding. We are way behind where we should be.

It's not about what is to my liking. It is about what we can objectively say is a concerted effort by the oil lobby and other special interests to roll back, slow down and completely stop environmentally friendly efforts.

What did I compare it to? The past. The EPA didnt even exist till the late 60s. I mentioned Trumps attempts to take us back but its similar to gay rights and abortion. You will always have the backwards people everyone is ashamed of in retrospect pulling you the wrong way....but society wont allow them to go as far as they would like. Stories on people just pouring terrible shit into the ocean with no regard are shocking today. They used to have pipes of sewage running directly into rivers with nobody batting an eye. It is better. It just isnt where it should be. But what is?

Is there one aspect of society that is going as well as we would all like?

Scientists are saying that long standing climates will change and the planet will warm as a direct result of our contributions, irrespective of normal, expected changes. We know this will have a deleterious effect on the lives and well being of many people. They actually haven't had to simplify the core issue because it is pretty simple. What isn't simple is the multitude of ways those changes will affect us. This is not a "when I was younger, it used to snow more" discussion. This is a "when I was younger, we had fewer droughts, mosquito infestations, wildfires, and CAT 5 hurricanes" discussion.

This is where we go to the obvious issue of manipulation. In the article you posted a few posts after that(which I read yesterday by the way) they admit to changing the wording of issues to make people more concerned. Going with "Climate crisis" now. And when you try to spin things as a crisis you have to take every chance to point to bad things happening and use it. Every single bigtime weather event is linked to climate change now. All of them. Nobody cares that floods killed literally millions of people in china in the somewhat recent past after droughts were just as terrible. The wild fires are always connected(ignoring that a full 10 of them in Cali this year alone were caused by power lines and explosive car crashes). Droughts are always linked. Now mosquitoes I suppose are on the list.

People just take things that are gonna happen no matter what and assign blame in an attempt to get people to act. It really is the result of well thought out marketing campaigns and decisions on how to label things for the most reaction. Its not like...malicious....but its manipulative. Any scientist knows you cant draw a straight line from a lot of these things to climate change so they dont really outright say its caused by global warming...just....take the tragedy and imply that more of it is to come than there would be if you took them serious. It really is a publicity thing. Much like weather channels deciding to name winter storms and go into the business of scaring people.

Science doesnt market. Its people out to make change through connecting tragedy to their issue....likely at the urging of PR companies who absolutely are hired by the climate change supporters. And im not saying it to imply it makes them bad people....but its what they do. Find a way to get your issue noticed and seen in the light you wish. Its not a conspiracy. Google PR firms and climate change. Many of them(arguably in the right) refuse to work for climate change deniers and will only take work from the other side.

Again.....you can argue they are right to do so. Global warming deniers are clearly just ignoring facts. But fact is...if the PR firms and marketing agencies only take work with the pro climate change side....what do you think they are doing? It aint science. They arent taking readings or drilling holes in the ice in Antarctica. They are doing what they do. Figuring out how to market their clients issue and get eyes on it.

You do that by getting people worried. Bet your ass it isnt the neck beard scientist in the woods in Alberta deciding to call it "Climate crisis". Hes just doing his work. The stuff like that is decided by Don Draper types who set out to manipulate the public just like they do on behalf of cherry coke or anything else.

You can quickly spot the difference between PR talk and science talk.

The science talk is dry and factual and convinced nobody of note. The PR talk is designed to scare with shit like "Change or die" and the one that ran all the ads of melting glaciers with the "This is the scariest thing you have ever seen" tagline.

Its manipulation. Its what they are hired for. many of the scientists that support it broadly wouldn't talk that way in person.

Its been as influenced by the politics and money as every other multi billion dollar issue that relies on votes from congress. And its fair...because the other side has damn sure outspent it with the oil companies on that team. Im not saying the green side is wrong....

Im saying they are just as willing to manipulate public sentiment as the other side because they both have one goal...to win.

And you dont win with a sober fact based approach because nobody listens to that when the other side is calling you snowflake soy boys and out to hurt the economy which has clearly infested the minds of so many easily manipulated people who lean right.

You win with climate crisis and change or die because the weak minded are manipulated by labels and taglines they hear a lot. Its just the green lobby bumper sticker "MAGA!" shit. Focus group tested well researched manipulation like everything else that asks congress for 100 billion dollars at a time.

Its manipulation for a good cause....but I dont appreciate the tactics any more than I would if it came from the right.

Will giving it to you straight with no flash or emotion work when the other side is shooting fireworks, handing out beers, and calling you a *****? Nope. Because most people arent gonna look past the flash and read pages of substantive dry data like maybe I would if bored.

But when you sink to their level and try to manipulate the public I dont take either side serious.

Just two sides and their PR firms fighting to mislead because they feel they are in the right.

I think the green side mostly is in the right....but I lose a lot of respect with the bullshit they push trying to combat the rights manipulation of the lemmings on their side. Both sides want lemmings and not people more or less in the center who might listen to either sides points if well made. I am not the target audience.

MaxFly

11-06-2019, 12:50 PM

What did I compare it to? The past. The EPA didnt even exist till the late 60s. I mentioned Trumps attempts to take us back but its similar to gay rights and abortion. You will always have the backwards people everyone is ashamed of in retrospect pulling you the wrong way....but society wont allow them to go as far as they would like. Stories on people just pouring terrible shit into the ocean with no regard are shocking today. They used to have pipes of sewage running directly into rivers with nobody batting an eye. It is better. It just isnt where it should be. But what is?

So basically we were getting an F, and we could be getting a B+ now in our progress... we have the tools, we have the knowledge, we have the capability... but instead we're getting a C- and we're praising our progress? Are we planning to have an awards ceremony for marginal improvement and participation?

This is where we go to the obvious issue of manipulation. In the article you posted a few posts after that(which I read yesterday by the way) they admit to changing the wording of issues to make people more concerned. Going with "Climate crisis" now.

Yeah, I think they have concluded the issue is dire enough, stemming from their research, that they have felt the need to raise the proverbial threat level.

People just take things that are gonna happen no matter what and assign blame in an attempt to get people to act.

You do that by getting people worried. Bet your ass it isnt the neck beard scientist in the woods in Alberta deciding to call it "Climate crisis". Hes just doing his work. The stuff like that is decided by Don Draper types who set out to manipulate the public just like they do on behalf of cherry coke or anything else.

So someone like William J Ripple (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Ripple), who wrote the most recent report, is a Don Draper type.

Again.....you can argue they are right to do so. Global warming deniers are clearly just ignoring facts. But fact is...if the PR firms and marketing agencies only take work with the pro climate change side....what do you think they are doing? It aint science. They arent taking readings or drilling holes in the ice in Antarctica. They are doing what they do. Figuring out how to market their clients issue and get eyes on it.

Scientists are drilling those holes, taking those samples, reviewing those readings and writing these reports. They haven't hired marketing and social media firms to sell global warming and climate change. By and large, they have put their names and reputations behind their claims. What is the motive behind thousands of scientists supporting a hoax or exaggerations?

And as for the PR firms only taking work with the pro climate change side... before I post anythings, I just want to make sure you're going to stand by that statement. You believe PR firms and marketing agencies only take work with the pro climate side.

Duderonomy

11-06-2019, 12:56 PM

Global warming is a scam. If it were real the government wouldn't do anything to punish the biggest offenders anyway (US Military, BP, Exon, etc)

Kblaze8855

11-06-2019, 03:46 PM

First let me say....I think I saw the first climate change commercial of my life just now. Watching nfl live and in a commercial they had an iguana swimming with some dark music and shit....turned out to be about global warming. The last second had a ny times logo. I don

Kblaze8855

11-06-2019, 03:52 PM

Here it is.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/04/worlds-top-pr-companies-rule-out-working-with-climate-deniers

From years ago. Many top firms decided to stop taking anti climate change work.

It does cover some obvious points....

[QUOTE]Davies said his group took on the research to try to get a better grasp of the mechanics behind the framing of messages on climate change

CelticBaller

11-06-2019, 03:55 PM

>global warming is real
>politicians use global warming to have more control over private companies

And ya don

Kblaze8855

11-06-2019, 04:21 PM

I dont know that control is the goal. Not in the nefarious way its suggested by opponents of global warming.

Some regulation just has to exist. Cant have people just ****ing up the water supply, kicking out smog like its cool, and all that.

Everyones inconvenienced by regulations but some of it is just forcing companies not to be evil because left to their own devices a lot of them proved they would be in the past.

Its not asking too much to stop a company from making the local rivers flammable is it? Its "control" but its also the right thing to do.

CelticBaller

11-08-2019, 09:01 PM

[QUOTE]

MaxFly

11-08-2019, 09:20 PM

Billions of dollars are at stake. Neither side fights this battle without media experts.

So the conspiracy theory is that scientists are being "alarmists" in order to make billions of dollars for themselves, or to make billions of dollars for the environmental lobby and the green industry...

MaxFly

11-08-2019, 09:28 PM

Scientists can’t make people care on their own so they hire people to sensationalize and market it better. I can’t even really blame them considering the budget of the opposition....but manipulation is manipulation. Just better intentioned.

I just want to nail this down. Scientists are hiring PR firms to sensationalize and lie about their research, the results of their research, and their analysis of their research. For instance, in this latest report written by scientists, they are lying, sensationalizing and exaggerating. That's what we're saying...

coin24

11-08-2019, 09:55 PM

Reminds me of the y2k scam, quick run out and buy special software cause the world will end when it ticks over to 2000:lol :facepalm

Climate change is a blatant scam

Kblaze8855

11-09-2019, 06:04 AM

You have done the “Just tying to make sure” thing where you create a position I didn’t state and don’t actually respond to anything several times now. You must be used to the circular go nowhere arguments you get in with the Trump trolls or something but me? I actually respond. I answer virtually all anyone asks without having to resort to deflection tactics, selective acknowledgement, or memes so I don’t know why you need to do it this way when there may be nobody on the internet as willing to fully explain what he’s saying for the sake of clarity.

I didn’t say lie. I didn’t say the motivation was personal finances.

I said the marketing people they hire are there to sensationalize the information because scientists and their data which I did not dispute the validity of can’t get attention with their dry factual approach. If they could they wouldn’t need pr firms and all that.

Data doesn’t get attention so they don’t use data except in the most broad form referencing that people believe the data without actually providing specifics. The specifics of the data puts people to sleep plus most past attempts to predict specific things on a time table left them looking like idiots in the future so all these arguments don’t play out in a field of facts....but one of emotion. They hire people to manipulate the public into caring because that’s how politics work. And when you rely on legislation and heads of state it absolutely is politics.

Norcaliblunt

11-09-2019, 12:04 PM

Climate change/environmentalism is the lefts version of austerity.

bladefd

11-09-2019, 02:00 PM

The data and impacts speak for themselves. It is not a process that is drawn over couple thousand years but instead a process we are already being impacted by. It will get worse on a scale of years & decades not centuries & millenia. At least get your basic facts straight.

CelticBaller

11-09-2019, 06:21 PM

Norcaliblunt

11-09-2019, 11:15 PM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Then go tell those 3rd world countries to stop using oil

Bet they won

AlternativeAcc.

11-09-2019, 11:20 PM

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]That

MaxFly

11-10-2019, 02:35 AM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You have done the

MaxFly

11-10-2019, 02:58 AM

That’s the crazy part. We still have billions of people starving or suffering from curable disease dying and shit. But climate change is the existential crisis of our lifetime?

Climate change will invariably lead to worsening conditions in the regions that are already dealing with a lack of food, water and widespread illness and disease. Bill Gates, for instance, is spending billions to combat disease around the globe, and to introduce technology that will allow for the recycling of waste water, but he is still intensely concerned about climate change. He was just up on Capitol hill two days ago (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bill-gates-visits-capitol-to-discuss-climate-change-with-new-senate-caucus/ar-BBWqzT0) meeting with Senators about climate change.

bladefd

11-10-2019, 04:24 AM

That’s the crazy part. We still have billions of people starving or suffering from curable disease dying and shit. But climate change is the existential crisis of our lifetime?

I asked someone else this earlier but why can't you walk and chew gum at the same time? Nobody is trying replace reducing poverty or combat diseases with climate change. Climate change just dips into many sectors so it seems like we're focusing all our resources into that, but it is not true that we are overlooking other issues..

Certain dirty energy sources are the greatest contributors to climate change. Using clean energy sources would help with climate change, but at the same time, energy is its own sector..

Norcaliblunt

11-10-2019, 11:03 AM

Nobody is trying replace reducing poverty or combat diseases with climate change.

Yes they are. That

CelticBaller

11-10-2019, 11:11 AM

Climate change will invariably lead to worsening conditions in the regions that are already dealing with a lack of food, water and widespread illness and disease. Bill Gates, for instance, is spending billions to combat disease around the globe, and to introduce technology that will allow for the recycling of waste water, but he is still intensely concerned about climate change. He was just up on Capitol hill two days ago (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bill-gates-visits-capitol-to-discuss-climate-change-with-new-senate-caucus/ar-BBWqzT0) meeting with Senators about climate change.
yet these regions need the carbon and oil profits to become sustainable enough to help themselves :facepalm

I would honestly side with them over some privileged white guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about

CelticBaller

11-10-2019, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]That

Kblaze8855

11-10-2019, 01:45 PM

Of course first responders and shooting victims on cameras talking to Congress are there for emotional manipulation.....

The facts are the same no matter who says them but you look bad ignoring them when the person who had to deal with the issue is sitting right in front of you on camera.

It

MaxFly

11-13-2019, 01:50 AM

yet these regions need the carbon and oil profits to become sustainable enough to help themselves :facepalm

I would honestly side with them over some privileged white guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about

The areas suffering the most from drought, disease, and food shortages aren't making much money off of oil. The areas that do have significant oil deposits but find themselves dealing with those issues have other larger issues to deal with before those problems can be effectively addressed.

Lol @ dismissing Bill Gates as just another privileged white guy. Guy is spending billions of his own dollars to address disease and a lack of clean water in developing countries round the globe.

MaxFly

11-13-2019, 02:38 AM

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Of course first responders and shooting victims on cameras talking to Congress are there for emotional manipulation.....

The facts are the same no matter who says them but you look bad ignoring them when the person who had to deal with the issue is sitting right in front of you on camera.

It

qrich

11-13-2019, 03:34 AM

ILLsmak

11-13-2019, 04:08 AM

Blaze, I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but your posts are often long, jumbled, repetitive, unclear, and sometimes even contradictory. They often read like a stream of consciousness... as if you dictated what you posted with a speech to text app.

I dunno if all that is true. Long, stream of consciousness etc... sure. I don't have any trouble understanding what anybody is saying unless I'm too tired to read and I miss out on essential words (like a masquerading 'not.')

I gotta stand up for KBlaze here. You two are already insulting each other, tho, so it's over... it's sad that such things happen, if not the person then the style of the person's debate, which is in effect the same thing. I feel like at some point you should look through your own posts, especially if you paste them out, like 8 posts in a row, your post, their response, your post... and put ME for your posts, put THEM for their posts. Then put it in a word document and look at it with the same critical eye you use to look at his posts. Don't get so caught up on single words.

Read it like an interview or a debate. You'll find a lot of people say the same things over and over and a lot of these 'debates' are like people doing a dance they always do, just hooking arms and doing their thing.

-Smak

bladefd

11-13-2019, 06:22 AM

I wonder how many of those that are so worried are doing the small things in their lives that may help combat this crisis...such as biking/walking to work....not utilizing electricity unless needed....no A/C or heater....etc

Just got solar panels installed in our house. That alone will be huge because it will power up whole house without reliance on any coal/centralized electric system, just the power of the sun. Took out a loan, which will pay for itself within 6yrs.. No electric bill, federal and state incentives (SREC) plus solar metering so we sell extra electricity to the local power company. After 6yrs, we are off the grid and loan paid off.

We just don't have the money for electric cars so that will have to wait few years.

Next goal is to fix house insulation to limit energy waste. Warm air just being drained out due to crap insulation in 40yr old house

MaxFly

11-13-2019, 09:44 AM

I dunno if all that is true. Long, stream of consciousness etc... sure. I don't have any trouble understanding what anybody is saying unless I'm too tired to read and I miss out on essential words (like a masquerading 'not.')

I gotta stand up for KBlaze here. You two are already insulting each other, tho, so it's over... it's sad that such things happen, if not the person then the style of the person's debate, which is in effect the same thing. I feel like at some point you should look through your own posts, especially if you paste them out, like 8 posts in a row, your post, their response, your post... and put ME for your posts, put THEM for their posts. Then put it in a word document and look at it with the same critical eye you use to look at his posts. Don't get so caught up on single words.

Read it like an interview or a debate. You'll find a lot of people say the same things over and over and a lot of these 'debates' are like people doing a dance they always do, just hooking arms and doing their thing.

-Smak

Yea, I'm not insulting him. As I said in my post, "I'm not attacking you. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from."

Look, we're on a web forum, so all we have in terms of judging where someone stands or understanding what someone is saying regarding a topic is what they have typed out. We don't have any of the other markers of communication; tone and body language are impossible to perceive here. This is why I generally repeat what posters have said back to them, often say, "it sounds like you are saying," or in many cases, ask outright what they are trying to communicate. I also go back and read my own posts to make sure I effectively communicated what I was trying to say and to make sure there was as little room for ambiguity as possible. :confusedshrug:

MaxFly

11-13-2019, 10:01 AM

I wonder how many of those that are so worried are doing the small things in their lives that may help combat this crisis...such as biking/walking to work....not utilizing electricity unless needed....no A/C or heater....etc

Yeah, we generally get through the summers with no AC and use heat as sparingly as reasonably possible during the colder months. That is especially difficult to do in the Northeast, but we make it work. We have energy saving windows, LED lighting; we turn lights and electronics off when we leave a room; we have energy efficient appliances; we're careful with our water consumption; tend to wash clothing on eco cold; we recycle faithfully. We're blessed to live in an area where we can easily walk to get errands done and with great access to public transportation. Our utility ranks our energy usage compared to that of our neighbors and others who are pretty conservative and we almost always best the most conservative energy users by a significant margin.

Here's the thing... I've approached almost all of these habits form a saving perspective first, with a mind on the environmental impact second. It turns out that in many cases, it's cost effective to be environmentally friendly. :confusedshrug:

MaxFly

11-13-2019, 10:21 AM

Just got solar panels installed in our house. That alone will be huge because it will power up whole house without reliance on any coal/centralized electric system, just the power of the sun. Took out a loan, which will pay for itself within 6yrs.. No electric bill, federal and state incentives (SREC) plus solar metering so we sell extra electricity to the local power company. After 6yrs, we are off the grid and loan paid off.

We just don't have the money for electric cars so that will have to wait few years.

Next goal is to fix house insulation to limit energy waste. Warm air just being drained out due to crap insulation in 40yr old house

I just helped a friend move into a house he bought that came with relatively new panels. I encouraged him to get a Powerwall or two if his finances allow for it. They are quite expensive, but with the tax credit, it could be worth it to further cement power savings.

CelticBaller

11-13-2019, 04:07 PM

The areas suffering the most from drought, disease, and food shortages aren't making much money off of oil. The areas that do have significant oil deposits but find themselves dealing with those issues have other larger issues to deal with before those problems can be effectively addressed.

Lol @ dismissing Bill Gates as just another privileged white guy. Guy is spending billions of his own dollars to address disease and a lack of clean water in developing countries round the globe.
Yet they wll now, I literally posted a link where african countries are now getting more into the oil business

if the U.S continues to decrease their carbon emissions, china, india and these african countries wont

and yeah, you guys are privileged whites thinking ya can tell other people what to do :rolleyes:

bladefd

11-13-2019, 06:17 PM

I just helped a friend move into a house he bought that came with relatively new panels. I encouraged him to get a Powerwall or two if his finances allow for it. They are quite expensive, but with the tax credit, it could be worth it to further cement power savings.

Power wall not necessary if your state has solar metering so you can sell excess solar energy to the local power company. You get credit for it and then you pull electricity off that credit when you use it. Not every state has solar metering though.

bladefd

11-13-2019, 06:21 PM

Yet they wll now, I literally posted a link where african countries are now getting more into the oil business

if the U.S continues to decrease their carbon emissions, china, india and these african countries wont

and yeah, you guys are privileged whites thinking ya can tell other people what to do :rolleyes:

So does that mean we should do nothing and keep up our carbon emissions?

Remember we use 25% of total energy so we have a responsibility as well. If other countries don't comply, you bring it up as part of future trade negotiations and make them accountable

CelticBaller

11-13-2019, 07:25 PM

So does that mean we should do nothing and keep up our carbon emissions?

Remember we use 25% of total energy so we have a responsibility as well. If other countries don't comply, you bring it up as part of future trade negotiations and make them accountable
Except we

bladefd

11-13-2019, 08:08 PM

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Except we

CelticBaller

11-13-2019, 08:34 PM

Yeah, we are doing well.

What was your point then? You said if US decreases carbon emissions, other countries won't. So what's your point relating the two?
I have been consistent in my point

You fools fall for the government using the climate change topic. All they’re doing is pushing their own political agenda(mostly control over the economy and private entities) by selling the climate change fear

One of the prominent ways to sell fear is to tell people they’re dying. Again you fools are falling for it :facepalm

ILLsmak

11-13-2019, 10:33 PM

Yea, I'm not insulting him. As I said in my post, "I'm not attacking you. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from."

Look, we're on a web forum, so all we have in terms of judging where someone stands or understanding what someone is saying regarding a topic is what they have typed out. We don't have any of the other markers of communication; tone and body language are impossible to perceive here. This is why I generally repeat what posters have said back to them, often say, "it sounds like you are saying," or in many cases, ask outright what they are trying to communicate. I also go back and read my own posts to make sure I effectively communicated what I was trying to say and to make sure there was as little room for ambiguity as possible. :confusedshrug:

Was just saying my piece. Imo you gave a pretty scathing "critique" of his posting. Didn't seem like, despite your saying, "I" am "simply trying" to understand, it doesn't seem like you are bearing any of the burden for that misunderstanding.

Writing is kind of an art. There are things like body language and tone that are perceived in words. Think of how many words you've written and read in your life. You have to know that.

Just like you can misinterpret someone's body language, you can misinterpret their writing. Doesn't mean there is no rule book or that peopld don't communicate more than their literal words are saying. Just my 2c.

I feel like there's a lot you don't yet know about yourself and what drives your behavior haha. Isn't it fun to exchange ideas and understand? Or is it just about being right? Does it usually end with someone being right or is it just one person finally leaves after pulling out their hair?

Thoughts...

-Smak

Kblaze8855

11-14-2019, 07:15 AM

So basically every time a victim of a crime or a tragedy speaks out about that crime or a tragedy, and a larger issue connected to that crime or tragedy, it's simply emotional manipulation on their part. They are simply trying to manipulate other people into agreeing with them by making them feel bad. It's not that they are trying to change people's minds on the issue, appeal to their common sense, or even appeal to their conscience and empathy. Rather, as you have framed it, they are emotionally manipulating people and playing the game because that's the only way to win that fight. Emotional manipulation... that's what the Sandy Hook parents are doing right now? Trayvon Martin's parents? That's how you would frame it?

How I would frame it based on my personal beliefs and what it is are not the same. People crying to congress are not there to educate them or explain something they have never heard. The personal touch is strictly emotional manipulation even when it has a good cause.

The 9/11 guys Jon Stewart brought to congress to cry with him were not there to give anyone in congress new facts. The facts can hardly be disputed. They are numbers. People dont care about those. They are easily ignored. A guy explaining that his best friend died for trying to save people from a terrorist attack and then not getting medical coverage from his country as his lungs fell apart from the dust is there to hurt feelings and make you look bad to not vote his way. His friend is dead and the people hes talking to already have those numbers. But him standing there teary eyes with a celebrity gets attention. Its emotional by design.

Theres nothing wrong with it morally...and nothing wrong with telling the truth about what it is.

The ridiculously vast majority of scientists dealing with ecology, climate science and the like are saying the same thing about climate change. Earlier you said that scientists tend to speak about these issues in raw numbers, data, and facts. That's true... but over the last few years, they have become increasingly vocal about the effects of climate change and their interpretation of the numbers, data and facts as it relates to what we should expect regarding climate change. Scientists don't conduct studies, publish peer-reviewed reports, and lend their names and reputations to fallacies and exaggerations. I don't believe you are naive enough to think that 11,000 scientists signed on in agreement to the findings of this study simply because a PR firm told them to.

No I wouldnt put it that way. Id say its like a teachers union. You can say "30,000 teachers say...." because as a group they do. But its the people framing the message for pay who are actually saying it on their behalf. Ask yourself this...

How do you get 11,000 people to sign something? It isnt a personal endeavor. Its coordinated by a central group. Its people sending emails and getting a hold of people using organizations they are involved with. They arent taking individual input from 11,000 people. There is someone writing a press release....and a firm getting all the names they can signed on for gravitas.

And I promise you....it isnt a guy taking readings from the top of some mountain in New Hampshire writing it out and getting 11,000 people from every corner of the globe to e-sign or acknowledge they can use their name(not that anyones even gonna investigate the names anyway).

These are professional manipulators for whom its a job.....its a client.

That doesnt mean they are evil....it doesnt even mean I dont agree with their goals.

But that doesnt make it wrong to admit what it is. Its all politics. You need votes to do these things. Scientists dont whip votes. Paid lobbyists do. This is their work. You DONT get things on this scale done without them.

Blaze, let's cut through the foolishness. Do you believe scientists are lying when they say we are facing a "climate emergency?" Do you believe they are exaggerating... stretching the truth... deceiving people... all in service to the green lobby?

I think "emergency" is too subjective to say they are lying. I think someone paid to influence politics writes every real statement made on behalf of large groups...so I dont pin the wording on any particular scientist. And I dont think id say its in service to the green lobby. They are the green lobby. Not(in my opinion at least) for financial gain but because they believe something should be done. But I dont think they are above manipulation to get it done. I think if you could get a group together and get honest answers...they would say the situation is dire enough that if exaggeration gets the planet on the right track its the right thing to do.

And maybe it is. But calling it what it is? Still fine.

You seem to be critical of the green lobby while ignoring the fact that scientists are saying many of the same things the green lobby is. NASA is saying many of the same things the green lobby is... on their federally funded website and in their federally funded reports.

What(non subjective) thing that they say...do you think I dispute?

I dont dispute the information. I take issue with where the information suggests we should place our priorities. And that is not a matter that a scientist decides. Being a scientist involved in climate studies does not give you more right to a vote on climate vs cancer research or military spending.

You add your take....with an obvious bias on where the attention should go much like an oncologist would for his field or a general for his. Then the world decides how to divide the pie.

When the pie is trillions of dollars you hire someone to manage the lobbying while you do your true work. The people talking for a living arent in the field. You might bring someone from the field for emotional gravitas in a hearing or attach names to a paper none of them write or edit but they arent personally responsible for the tone of the political argument.

Thats why you dont see me say the scientists are wrong.....I take issue with the messaging.

Political messaging is manipulation by design. It just is.

I dont have to pretend not to see it when I fundamentally agree with the goal.

Being able to see and be honest about both sides being somewhat full of shit is among my.....things. Admitting your side is full of shit is hard.....but its true. Its ALWAYS true.

MaxFly

11-22-2019, 10:46 PM

I feel like there's a lot you don't yet know about yourself and what drives your behavior haha. Isn't it fun to exchange ideas and understand? Or is it just about being right? Does it usually end with someone being right or is it just one person finally leaves after pulling out their hair?

Thoughts...

-Smak

Lol, I'm pretty sure I know myself quite well and know what drives my behavior. As I mentioned, I take pains to understand what other posters are trying to communicate, because if there is confusion, it serves no one to jump to a definitive conclusion as to what someone has said before they're given a chance to elaborate on what they were trying to say. If you question that, jump back a few pages and read some of the preceding posts.

I think it's also important to note that we don't live in a world where there is ambiguity and ambivalence in every debate point. There are quite literally people who think the earth is flat, who believe we didn't set foot on the moon and who believe climate change is a complete hoax. It serves no one to pretend there is legitimacy in those arguments for the sake of taking a general "well, I can kind of see what he/she is saying..." approach to every discussion. :confusedshrug:

MaxFly

11-23-2019, 12:35 AM

How I would frame it based on my personal beliefs and what it is are not the same. People crying to congress are not there to educate them or explain something they have never heard. The personal touch is strictly emotional manipulation even when it has a good cause.

The 9/11 guys Jon Stewart brought to congress to cry with him were not there to give anyone in congress new facts. The facts can hardly be disputed. They are numbers. People dont care about those. They are easily ignored. A guy explaining that his best friend died for trying to save people from a terrorist attack and then not getting medical coverage from his country as his lungs fell apart from the dust is there to hurt feelings and make you look bad to not vote his way. His friend is dead and the people hes talking to already have those numbers. But him standing there teary eyes with a celebrity gets attention. Its emotional by design.

Theres nothing wrong with it morally...and nothing wrong with telling the truth about what it is.

Yeah, I think we've gone down a seriously dark rabbit hole when we frame the advocacy of survivors and those affected by tragedy as emotional manipulation. It certainly is emotional - I imagine anyone who has lost a child or is forced to deal with a chronic disease as a result of simply doing their job would find themselves in an emotional place - but framing their advocacy as emotional manipulation is beyond the pale. I think that kind of interpretation misses what actual emotional manipulation is.

[QUOTE]What is Emotional Manipulation:
Manipulation is essentially the use of unclear agendas in attempts to get another person to do what you want. Both the manipulator and the person being manipulated may be unaware that this is occurring.

Let