EPT![[image loading]](http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/4-gtemps.gif)
TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
voy
Poland348 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On February 02 2012 20:08 Acrofales wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 02 2012 16:56 aebriol wrote: The question isn't if it will be 'harsh effects' the question is whether or not it will cost a lot more than trying to reverse something we aren't sure if we even can reverse. Obviously it will have some effect. But it's not as obvious as some like to think what the effects will be ... we let people starve to death in Africa today, I don't really know for a fact that we just won't let that happen again. I think you are being very irresponsible. 44% of the world's population (estimate from UN) lives in a coastal area. Letting those areas flood will cause MASSIVE migration. It will also not only affect poor areas. London, Barcelona, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and, for you, Oslo may not be salvageable with a couple of meters rise in sea level. A lot of arable land will be lost worldwide and the additional climate change will cause all kinds of changes in crop growth. Whether or not we are able to reverse global warming? I don't know (and most models are kinda vague on that), but I don't think anybody doubts that not reversing it will have gigantic costs in human (and animal) life and welfare. Those costs ARE greater than investing in a big way in sustainable energy. Btw, I don't feel that global warming is the only problem we face, or possibly even the greatest, but I feel ALL of them should be tackled, including global warming. Especially as any meaningful concept of sustainable takes all environmental issues into account: mining of minerals (such as neodymium or lithium, which are mined in terribly polluting manner), farming (with fertilizer runoff causing huge problems and water consumption of agriculture being one of the largest problems in the world), waste management and, of course, energy production. We are, in general, living in a manner that we cannot sustain for many more generations and we need to change to give our offspring (even if I don't have children and am not sure I plan on having any) a liveable planet. I dont hear you stating anything beyond the polemic. The BEST, not the defintiive, ice core records we have show the Earth on the whole has had degrees of variability for 16,000 years. The fact is AGW is a pseudo-scientific movement that denies the fact that CO2 is a minimal factor in global warming and is more a by-product of other things that warm the Earth. Ignoring the evidence is one thing for academics, but the bigger ramifications are the billions of dollars/pounds/francs/etc. being pumped into "stopping human CO2 production" (a tiny amount of worldwide CO2 production) instead of investing that money into education or alleviating poverty; Not to mention those in the third world that are told by the IPCC and UN not to industrialize so they don't produce CO2 emissions, signifing a total lack of humanity. | ||
|
pootz
2 Posts
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence on one side of the arguement, but a great amount of faithful followers and money on the other side. I find it amusing that some people bring up the conspiracy of scientists (who want to remain gainfully employed) and democrats who own eco-companies. Look at the other side and you see a vast amount of huge companies who are all polluting way to much. If they would be forced to pollute less it would obviously cost them a great deal of money. (i'm not saying this is only the case in the states) | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 02 2012 20:33 voy wrote: Humans are truly overrating themselves thinking that we can change the nature. Climate cycles are every couple hundrets of years. 1. What does the Y axis represent? + Show Spoiler + Nothing 2. Who is Cliff Harris? + Show Spoiler + Cliff Harris does not believe in science, but that God changes the laws of physics whenever he choose. "I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in. Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it." The irony of the whole climate sceptic movement is that they are never sceptical of their own data. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On February 01 2012 23:26 Acrofales wrote: Changing the name doesn't change the facts. Global warming refers to the fact that the planet is warming up. Climate change refers to the changing climate (droughts, rainfall patterns, more/less hurricanes, etc. etc. etc.). The supposition is that the former is a cause of the latter, but the latter is what politicians mainly need to worry about. However, the former is in no way, shape, or form considered false in the scientific community. Whether investors took advantage of the fact I cannot really say anything about as I don't know anything about that. However, global warming is not a hoax: the world is, demonstrably, warming up and if you go back 1 or 2 pages you can find some of the scientific sources I linked to as evidence. I understand that there is a NATURAL increase in temperatures that our planet has cycled through many many times before. But global warming as it has been debated is about whether or not we humans are causing the change by driving cars, etc. And yes, a handful of people got filthy rich, including scientists who are clearly favored to provided misleading data, on the scare that this is our fault. Sure we can do things to prepare for the change in climate, but we can't stop it. It is delusional to think we can. The "global warming scare" was a hoax. Climate change is a fact. | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On February 02 2012 22:05 pootz wrote: I find it amusing that some people bring up the conspiracy of scientists (who want to remain gainfully employed) and democrats who own eco-companies. Look at the other side and you see a vast amount of huge companies who are all polluting way to much. If they would be forced to pollute less it would obviously cost them a great deal of money. (i'm not saying this is only the case in the states) No, companies with an eco-/proclimate-appearance can sell their products because of the (imo irrational) fear of the people. "Oh there's a green cycle around a CO2-sign, let's buy this book because I will save us all with it" (girl of my class bought a book because of that, just an example). It maybe like you described in the States because there people don't freak out that much about global warming like in my country where even the government pays so much on solar energy subsidies which aren't really useful in Mid/Northern Europe. "Polluting" companies will rather trick the people/change their appereance than secretly helping climate-conspiracists who won't change the public's mind, because this won't help them. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On February 02 2012 20:27 mcc wrote: Well, as I said you misspoke.Originally you said that current plans want to fight with the effects of global warming, which is not true, current plans want to fight with the cause of it. As you now corrected yourself it is a question whether it is worth to fight the cause of global warming or just suffer its effects. I am not arguing with that. I don't think the current plans are to fight the cause of global warming. Current plans are to not do anything. Unless voters everywhere decide to suddenly care about what happens 3+ years into the future. Current track record? Horrible. Just look at all the states currently in major debt because the voters couldn't give a shit about the national economics, as long as they could vote for their current self interests. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18220 Posts
On February 03 2012 23:37 jeremycafe wrote: I understand that there is a NATURAL increase in temperatures that our planet has cycled through many many times before. But global warming as it has been debated is about whether or not we humans are causing the change by driving cars, etc. And yes, a handful of people got filthy rich, including scientists who are clearly favored to provided misleading data, on the scare that this is our fault. Sure we can do things to prepare for the change in climate, but we can't stop it. It is delusional to think we can. The "global warming scare" was a hoax. Climate change is a fact. So, if I get this straight, you agree with me that the earth has been, on average, warming up since approximately the middle of last century and shows no signs of stopping. That's a start. Now we start looking at the causes for temperature cycles in the past and now. The graph in the post above yours is very pretty, but really says nothing. I agree with you that the evidence for human-caused global warming is far more circumstantial than for the simple fact that global warming is happening, but it does exist. Now, I am going to go against my own principles and post a journalistic article, rather than scientific. However, despite not being new science, or even a peer-reviewed survey or meta-analysis of other work, it is a pretty well-written article with quality references, that you can use as a starting point for reading why anthropogenic global warming is the best explanation for the observation that the earth is currently warming up. http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming If you have specific criticisms or foundations for stating the current cycle of warming is caused by something other than (for the most part) human contributions, please state what exactly and I will try to answer you in more detail. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 04 2012 01:16 aebriol wrote: I don't think the current plans are to fight the cause of global warming. Current plans are to not do anything. Unless voters everywhere decide to suddenly care about what happens 3+ years into the future. Current track record? Horrible. Just look at all the states currently in major debt because the voters couldn't give a shit about the national economics, as long as they could vote for their current self interests. By current plans I of course do not mean what was implemented or what is currently in the works , as nothing really was as you said, but what was proposed to address it by scientists and others. As that is what the discussion was about. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On February 04 2012 01:45 Acrofales wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 03 2012 23:37 jeremycafe wrote: I understand that there is a NATURAL increase in temperatures that our planet has cycled through many many times before. But global warming as it has been debated is about whether or not we humans are causing the change by driving cars, etc. And yes, a handful of people got filthy rich, including scientists who are clearly favored to provided misleading data, on the scare that this is our fault. Sure we can do things to prepare for the change in climate, but we can't stop it. It is delusional to think we can. The "global warming scare" was a hoax. Climate change is a fact. So, if I get this straight, you agree with me that the earth has been, on average, warming up since approximately the middle of last century and shows no signs of stopping. That's a start. Now we start looking at the causes for temperature cycles in the past and now. The graph in the post above yours is very pretty, but really says nothing. I agree with you that the evidence for human-caused global warming is far more circumstantial than for the simple fact that global warming is happening, but it does exist. Now, I am going to go against my own principles and post a journalistic article, rather than scientific. However, despite not being new science, or even a peer-reviewed survey or meta-analysis of other work, it is a pretty well-written article with quality references, that you can use as a starting point for reading why anthropogenic global warming is the best explanation for the observation that the earth is currently warming up. http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming If you have specific criticisms or foundations for stating the current cycle of warming is caused by something other than (for the most part) human contributions, please state what exactly and I will try to answer you in more detail. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying there HAS NOT been a hockey stik in the recent century, but actually several dips that indicate natural variation and in the last 2 or 3 years that "hockey stick" is null because temperatures have stabilized and are expected to drop. You can disregard predictions of the future, sure, but don't blindly dismiss a graphs based on Vostock data and peer reviewed/researched by top climatoligists. "Your" guys have crendentials too, so all we have left is the data really. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18220 Posts
On February 04 2012 06:26 slytown wrote: That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying there HAS NOT been a hockey stik in the recent century, but actually several dips that indicate natural variation and in the last 2 or 3 years that "hockey stick" is null because temperatures have stabilized and are expected to drop. You can disregard predictions of the future, sure, but don't blindly dismiss a graphs based on Vostock data and peer reviewed/researched by top climatoligists. "Your" guys have crendentials too, so all we have left is the data really. Firstly that's not what he said at all. Maybe read the poor guy's post before deciding to answer for him. Secondly, just one page back I posted about 4 links to evidence showing that whatever you're claiming about global warming slowing down or reversing is just plain wrong. How about you actually post some of that scientific data you claim to have... and no, a single graph without its context is not anything, let alone scientific. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On February 04 2012 06:40 Acrofales wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 04 2012 06:26 slytown wrote: That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying there HAS NOT been a hockey stik in the recent century, but actually several dips that indicate natural variation and in the last 2 or 3 years that "hockey stick" is null because temperatures have stabilized and are expected to drop. You can disregard predictions of the future, sure, but don't blindly dismiss a graphs based on Vostock data and peer reviewed/researched by top climatoligists. "Your" guys have crendentials too, so all we have left is the data really. Firstly that's not what he said at all. Maybe read the poor guy's post before deciding to answer for him. Secondly, just one page back I posted about 4 links to evidence showing that whatever you're claiming about global warming slowing down or reversing is just plain wrong. How about you actually post some of that scientific data you claim to have... and no, a single graph without its context is not anything, let alone scientific. Already did. Look at my past posts in this thread. I'm not gonna repost. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Every single fucking retard that posted some stupid graph they found on google images, never even checked the validity of the person who created it, or even used half their brain to realise the graph isn't even scientific. ----------------------------- Here's some face-palm examples that i've had to go through so far. On February 02 2012 20:33 voy wrote: Humans are truly overrating themselves thinking that we can change the nature. Climate cycles are every couple hundrets of years. + Show Spoiler + LOL NO Y-AXIS, AND QUESTION MARKS ON TEMPERATURES? Your argument is invalid. And to top it off. LOL AUTHOR THINKS GOD IS A FACTOR OF EARTHS CLIMATE PATTERNS!!! On December 14 2011 14:19 XRaDiiX wrote: ... etc etc etc Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor  LOL DID NOT EVEN READ OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! The wikipedia article states the OPPOSITE of what you wrote! Your first article states that water vapour accounts for 95%, while Wikipedia states only 36-85% (max). I could guess on average it would be 60%? Not 95%. If you used 5% in your calculation and got 0.5C degrees of man-made warming, that would not be much, but now multiply that by 13 and you get 6.5C. I think you would agree that 6.5C degrees is A LOT. Think of the hottest day you've ever had, and add 6.5C (lets say 104F -> 116F, I dunno I don't really know farenheit you work it out) degrees onto it. You also realise that if we had no greenhouse effect we'd all be frozen. --------------------------------- My head hurts from having to just read the evidence and realise either the poster only read the title of the article and then posted it, or the author is from an oil company or fundamentalist christian who believes god determines the earths cycles, or the evidence when actually read properly is an inconsistent crock of shit. Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. As for money, of course people are making money of this. Are you fucking dumb? people make money off selling games, does that make games bad? no?. Wtf is the point of saying its wrong to make money, it's possibly the best thing that could happen, because it even allows polluting companies like BP to invest in renewable technology and hopefully and eventually convert like they are doing now and promote change (which is what they are doing). Unfortunately smart oil/energy companies are few and far between, and would rather waste their slush funds on a hopeless marketing campaign (causing doubt in the community) because a CEO jobs life time is only a few years, and shareholders work on a yearly rate. For them, more money now > even more money later. If everyone knew there was a concensus on this issue, and knew that they could make a difference to the health of our future generations, lessen the strength of natural disasters (Australia recently been getting hit like there's no tomorrow, record temperatures broken nearly every year, a massive flood that destroyed Queenslands agricultural industry, followed a month later by a cyclone almost the size of USA, massive floods twice a year, worst bushfire in history, record drought, in my life I had never seen anything like it, mother nature has just cracked the shits in the last 5 years). I'm sure nearly everyone would be happy to get on board and try and curb this problem, unfortunately, just a hint of doubt, and people will find any excuse not to do anything. | ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
You don't always understand what the doctor is saying ether, but you damn well should listen to him. | ||
|
attwell
United States220 Posts
More greenhouse gases => higher atmospheric temps => more melted ice caps => less reflected light and more methane and other gases released from under permafrost => higher temperatures....etc. the same thing has happened in the past from natural phenomena which changed atmospheric conditions such as increased solar radiation, minor impact events, volcanic eruptions, etc. So IMO, humans fucked up a bit, the earth will keep that ball rolling, and eventually we will see how bad it actually is, buy your inland beachfront property now. | ||
|
Piste
6183 Posts
| ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On February 04 2012 17:39 sluggaslamoo wrote: + Show Spoiler + In this entire thread not a single person has provided SCIENTIFIC evidence against man-made climate change. Every single fucking retard that posted some stupid graph they found on google images, never even checked the validity of the person who created it, or even used half their brain to realise the graph isn't even scientific. ----------------------------- Here's some face-palm examples that i've had to go through so far. On February 02 2012 20:33 voy wrote: Humans are truly overrating themselves thinking that we can change the nature. Climate cycles are every couple hundrets of years. + Show Spoiler + LOL NO Y-AXIS, AND QUESTION MARKS ON TEMPERATURES? Your argument is invalid. And to top it off. LOL AUTHOR THINKS GOD IS A FACTOR OF EARTHS CLIMATE PATTERNS!!! On December 14 2011 14:19 XRaDiiX wrote: ... etc etc etc Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor LOL DID NOT EVEN READ OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! The wikipedia article states the OPPOSITE of what you wrote! Your first article states that water vapour accounts for 95%, while Wikipedia states only 36-85% (max). I could guess on average it would be 60%? Not 95%. If you used 5% in your calculation and got 0.5C degrees of man-made warming, that would not be much, but now multiply that by 13 and you get 6.5C. I think you would agree that 6.5C degrees is A LOT. Think of the hottest day you've ever had, and add 6.5C (lets say 104F -> 116F, I dunno I don't really know farenheit you work it out) degrees onto it. You also realise that if we had no greenhouse effect we'd all be frozen. --------------------------------- My head hurts from having to just read the evidence and realise either the poster only read the title of the article and then posted it, or the author is from an oil company or fundamentalist christian who believes god determines the earths cycles, or the evidence when actually read properly is an inconsistent crock of shit. Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. As for money, of course people are making money of this. Are you fucking dumb? people make money off selling games, does that make games bad? no?. Wtf is the point of saying its wrong to make money, it's possibly the best thing that could happen, because it even allows polluting companies like BP to invest in renewable technology and hopefully and eventually convert like they are doing now and promote change (which is what they are doing). Unfortunately smart oil/energy companies are few and far between, and would rather waste their slush funds on a hopeless marketing campaign (causing doubt in the community) because a CEO jobs life time is only a few years, and shareholders work on a yearly rate. For them, more money now > even more money later. If everyone knew there was a concensus on this issue, and knew that they could make a difference to the health of our future generations, lessen the strength of natural disasters (Australia recently been getting hit like there's no tomorrow, record temperatures broken nearly every year, a massive flood that destroyed Queenslands agricultural industry, followed a month later by a cyclone almost the size of USA, massive floods twice a year, worst bushfire in history, record drought, in my life I had never seen anything like it, mother nature has just cracked the shits in the last 5 years). I'm sure nearly everyone would be happy to get on board and try and curb this problem, unfortunately, just a hint of doubt, and people will find any excuse not to do anything. You mad bro? Two points: there is no proof in science and science does not progress by consensus but paradigm shifts. | ||
| ||
