The global consensus on global warmi...climate change gets more consensusy

deathscythehe

deathscythehe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
20 (100%)
Before you read this, remember, their is a consensus on climate change and only flat earth holocaust deniers disagree with this notion. Everything they've been saying for the past 20 years has been true, and they haven't missed anything, especially nothing major.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html

It's funny now how the people pushing carbon credits and all those great things mostly GE and their 'advocates') are going all out demanding their initiatives now. It couldn't be because they know damn well they're going to be exposed for the frauds they are, and they're quickly losing their only chance at their massive power grab.
 
There was a great Youtube video on the whole subject so that people could stop arguing.

It summed up the whole debate with a fun chart:

Do nothing + climate change is affected by man = :hot:
Do nothing + climate change is not affected by man = :)

Act now + climate change is affected by man = :)
Act now + climate change is not affected by man = :whistle2:s

Obviously you want to avoid the burning smiley. It's oversimplified but acting without all the facts is better than arguing until something happens.
 
Ugh, I would really hate to be a scientist, trying so hard to explain shit with all these other people trying their best not to understand.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Ugh, I would really hate to be a scientist, trying so hard to explain shit with all these other people trying their best not to understand.[/QUOTE]

Study the history of Darwin.
It took him six editions before he finally said "O.K, fuck it", and told it how it is.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']There was a great Youtube video on the whole subject so that people could stop arguing.

It summed up the whole debate with a fun chart:

Do nothing + climate change is affected by man = :hot:
Do nothing + climate change is not affected by man = :)

Act now + climate change is affected by man = :)
Act now + climate change is not affected by man = :whistle2:s

Obviously you want to avoid the burning smiley. It's oversimplified but acting without all the facts is better than arguing until something happens.[/QUOTE]
I prefer XKCD's stance on things:

global_warming.png
 
[quote name='willardhaven']There was a great Youtube video on the whole subject so that people could stop arguing.

It summed up the whole debate with a fun chart:

Do nothing + climate change is affected by man = :hot:
Do nothing + climate change is not affected by man = :)

Act now + climate change is affected by man = :)
Act now + climate change is not affected by man = :whistle2:s

Obviously you want to avoid the burning smiley. It's oversimplified but acting without all the facts is better than arguing until something happens.[/QUOTE]

Meh, replace climate change with belief in the Christian god and that's the arguement the Christians try and scare people with.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to go with the 99+ percent of scientists on this one.
 
I believe he's referring to Pascal's Wager. Which... I dunno, I see where he's coming from there, but it's not quite a match. Eh, whatever.
 
We stand to gain in terms of air quality, food supply and other areas by acting as if humans are catastrophically affecting climate so we might as well change things. There's nothing religious or impractical about that.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']We stand to gain in terms of air quality, food supply and other areas by acting as if humans are catastrophically affecting climate so we might as well change things. There's nothing religious or impractical about that.[/QUOTE]

Crotch nailed it - I'm referring to Pascal's wager.

I don't want to sidetrack this dicussion with the quality of the analogy.

Rather this - if we act on global warming and we're wrong about it, it's not like we have lost nothing. We've lost a great deal of time and money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

Fortunately science is rather conclusive that global warming is real, and all the evidence points to man as a chief agitator.

BTW - that article is funny, you can tell it's full of shit one sentence in. "Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries" - from Galileo to indulgences to molestations committed by priests, the Catholic church has a rich history of being wrong and persecuting those who speak the truth. But hey, they only took almost four centuries to forgive Galileo so it's all good, right?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']There was a great Youtube video on the whole subject so that people could stop arguing.

It summed up the whole debate with a fun chart:

Do nothing + climate change is affected by man = :hot:
Do nothing + climate change is not affected by man = :)

Act now + climate change is affected by man = :)
Act now + climate change is not affected by man = :whistle2:s

Obviously you want to avoid the burning smiley. It's oversimplified but acting without all the facts is better than arguing until something happens.[/QUOTE]

I remember that video. The biggest problem with it is that it underestimated the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Treasury estimates $100-400 billion a year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/18/taking_liberties/entry5322108.shtml

This is not a small price to pay, especially given the fact that (1) the cost far outstrips any benefit, even if the models are correct (all 40 used by the IPCC have been completely wrong for the last 10 years); (2) our federal budget crisis is the biggest problem facing our country, and this would make things far, far worse; and (3) the estimates linked to above don't even take into account certain costs like rising prices that are sure to result from anything close to Waxman-Markey.

So basically the flaming smiley should be by "doing something and finding out it was not necessary" as well.

[quote name='willardhaven']We stand to gain in terms of air quality, food supply and other areas by acting as if humans are catastrophically affecting climate so we might as well change things. There's nothing religious or impractical about that.[/QUOTE]

1. Carbon dioxide at the levels we're talking about does not adversely affect air quality. In fact, due to rising CO2 levels, plants are more productive and yields have improved. It's really a fascinating story that nobody seems to know, but read here:

http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/779

2. 0.6 degrees C of temperature change, even if induced by humans, is not "catastrophic." And as I argued above, the proposed costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions far outstrip any benefit even assuming predictions for what the climate will be in 100 years turn out to be correct. Here is an excellent article written just yesterday on this subject:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/20/cl...nsus-opinions-contributors-bjorn-lomborg.html
 
Some good information there. My assumption was that "action" involved cleaning up emissions and moving toward sustainable, "greener" practices in addition to reducing CO2. I should have detailed my post more, as I was not just referring to CO2.

Cost shouldn't be a major impedance as the "green" solution is often more profitable.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Some good information there. My assumption was that "action" involved cleaning up emissions and moving toward sustainable, "greener" practices in addition to reducing CO2. I should have detailed my post more, as I was not just referring to CO2.

Cost shouldn't be a major impedance as the "green" solution is often more profitable.[/QUOTE]

Quite frankly, those running organizations like Greenpeace don't want you to know it, but we've by and large cleaned up our air, and are continuing to do so. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Even coal plants are quite clean nowadays, although you'd never know it from the rhetoric. Here are some relevant facts about the results of our efforts:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/4/376

For the approximate period of 1980 through 2000, the average increase in life expectancy was 2.72 years for the counties in this analysis. Reduced air pollution was only one factor contributing to increased life expectancies, with its effects overlapping with those of other factors. On the basis of the average reduction in the PM2.5 concentration (6.52 µg per cubic meter) in the metropolitan areas included in this analysis and the effect estimate from model 4 in Table 2, the average increase in life expectancy attributable to the reduced levels of air pollution was approximately 0.4 year (6.52x0.061). Multicausality and competing risk issues make it difficult to quantify changes in life expectancy attributable to single risk factors, but these results suggest that the individual effect of reductions in air pollution on life expectancy was as much as 15% of the overall increase. In metropolitan areas where reductions in PM2.5 were 13 to 14 µg per cubic meter, the contribution of improvements in air quality to increases in life expectancy may have been as much as 0.82 year (13.5x0.061).
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that putting money into research and solving developmental problems today is far more cost-effective as regards this problem, if you think it's a huge problem or not (personally I'm skeptical but open to conclusive evidence).
 
I'm perfectly open to cleaning up our environment, where it makes sense, in our own country, as long as it does not levy a hidden tax (like carbon credits) to do it.

My biggest concern with the "Going Green" movement is what it can and will do to developing countries. If we enforce our green practices on them it will literally cost lives. There is no getting around that fact. That's why I advocate each country minding it's own business when it comes to green tech.

I just watched the Bullshit episode on "Going Green" last night on Netflix/Xbox, it was pretty good.
 
The problem is that scientists think what they do is always right and everyone else is an idiot, when the scientists are close minded idiots who have been proven wrong 100,000,000 times in the last 50 years dealing with space and planets.

I say we do nothing because I want an ocean front house.

Also, the people go "We need to save the planet from global warming!!!!", and that's why no one listens to these dumb fuckers, the planet will be perfectly fine, we aren't killing the planet at all, what we are doing is killing ourselves.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']The problem is that scientists think what they do is always right and everyone else is an idiot, when the scientists are close minded idiots who have been proven wrong 100,000,000 times in the last 50 years dealing with space and planets.[/QUOTE]

Congratulations, you typed something so incredibly fucking stupid that it made my head hurt.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

My biggest concern with the "Going Green" movement is what it can and will do to developing countries. If we enforce our green practices on them it will literally cost lives.

[/QUOTE]

Explain this.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Congratulations, you typed something so incredibly fucking stupid that it made my head hurt.[/QUOTE]

I know typing is too much for your head to handle, maybe you should rest your brain before typing.

Scientists don't know jack shit about the universe, and have believed things that were incredibly wrong in today's point of view. The planet will be perfectly fine, the planet has lived through more than 7 billion dumb humans. At most we are only killing ourselves and I'm perfectly fine with that.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']
Scientists don't know jack shit about the universe, and have believed things that were incredibly wrong in today's point of view. The planet will be perfectly fine, the planet has lived through more than 7 billion dumb humans. At most we are only killing ourselves and I'm perfectly fine with that.[/QUOTE]

Venus is "fine" by your standard, so what are you arguing?
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']I know typing is too much for your head to handle, maybe you should rest your brain before typing.

Scientists don't know jack shit about the universe, and have believed things that were incredibly wrong in today's point of view. The planet will be perfectly fine, the planet has lived through more than 7 billion dumb humans. At most we are only killing ourselves and I'm perfectly fine with that.[/QUOTE]

Those 7 billion didn't mix chemicals the way we do, among many other things. Understand technology fucker. Look at where we have come from, before people banged rocks together, now everything is created in labs. You didn't have unnatural waste back then, now nothing is biodegradable. The environment, global warming/etc. included, is NOT THE fuckING SAME AS EVEN ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Your ass, it is not made for talking, so please, shove a cork in it. Kthx.
 
Ugh. A particularly bothersome strain of the Internet Tough Guy - the Internet Nihilist. Likes to imagine that the sky is falling and he'll be just fine watching it all go by. He'll lean nonchalantly against a building as things come crashing down around him, a cigarette pressed between his lips and a fine leather jacket on his back. He believes that things are going to hell, but he'll make it through - after all, he can quote all the most intimidating lines from Pulp Fiction and Sin City.

Admittedly not a perfect match in this case, but hey, I deal in broad, sweeping generalizations.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Explain this.[/QUOTE]

Many third world countries are just now starting to get clean water in their villages and power. Those two things raise life expectancy, health, and life quality exponentially.

Asking them to suddenly change to certain technologies that are more expensive, more dependent on foreign company's, or take longer to implement is putting their lives at risk. For developed countries it's simply an inconvenience to switch to being green, to undeveloped countries it's life threatening.

This is especially dangerous if we try to enforce this crazy-ass carbon credit idea on them.

But, it all comes down to exactly how international policy is implemented. Many of the suggestions and discussions going on in the international green movement could and would hurt developing countries.
 
[quote name='georox']Those 7 billion didn't mix chemicals the way we do, among many other things. Understand technology fucker. Look at where we have come from, before people banged rocks together, now everything is created in labs. You didn't have unnatural waste back then, now nothing is biodegradable. The environment, global warming/etc. included, is NOT THE fuckING SAME AS EVEN ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Your ass, it is not made for talking, so please, shove a cork in it. Kthx.[/QUOTE]
You can't kill the Earth. The Earth can however kill you.
I think George Carlin explains it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA
NSFW for language, obviously.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']But, it all comes down to exactly how international policy is implemented. Many of the suggestions and discussions going on in the international green movement could and would hurt developing countries.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but you see, many "environmentalist" leaders are really nothing of the sort. Environmentalism has unfortunately been largely co-opted by people wishing to push political goals using environmental rhetoric. That is why something like Waxman-Markey -- which even the head of the EPA admits will do nothing at all to change temperatures even if we assume models are correct, while imposing new costs on Americans of $100-400+ billion -- actually is able to pass the House of Representatives (although, thank God, not the Senate). And that is why the estranged co-founder of Greenpeace fights them at every turn.

Here are two good quotes to illustrate what I'm talking about.

[quote name='former Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO)']What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.[/quote]

[quote name='Al Gore']I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [anthropogenic global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top