|
On July 26 2012 07:11 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:09 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen. What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur. Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
Well, you see, most of the things "you people" think are helping the world is doing the exact opposite. Like wind turbines and less consumerism and shit like that.
|
On July 26 2012 07:13 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:08 Kich wrote:On July 26 2012 07:08 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory? Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up. I don't know, ask Gandhi? It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people. At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me.
You wanted to spend alot of money on fixing the world based on conjecture. That's the same thing as rounding up the poorest people and killing them. We will survive. We will still have money and food. They won't. And no, we won't be going up to them and directly steal whatever they have, it's just an effect of having less money in total.
|
On July 26 2012 07:13 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:11 Kich wrote:On July 26 2012 07:09 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen. What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur. Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters. Well, you see, most of the things "you people" think are helping the world is doing the exact opposite. Like wind turbines and less consumerism and shit like that.
I don't believe I mentioned those. I also don't know why you quoted "you people", that sounds patronizing towards someone you don't know.
|
On July 26 2012 07:15 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:13 Kich wrote:On July 26 2012 07:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:08 Kich wrote:On July 26 2012 07:08 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory? Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up. I don't know, ask Gandhi? It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people. At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me. You wanted to spend alot of money on fixing the world based on conjecture. That's the same thing as rounding up the poorest people and killing them. We will survive. We will still have money and food. They won't. And no, we won't be going up to them and directly steal whatever they have, it's just an effect of having less money in total.
That's not what I said nor what I implied, you misunderstood me.
|
On July 26 2012 07:06 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:51 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/24fbn0o.jpg) This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another... Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe). Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)? Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory? I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane. edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye. Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors. Bolded is speculation, obviously. That's who I mean. You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
I could be right. Not everyone could be.
Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy.
And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for.
And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place.
|
On July 26 2012 07:11 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:09 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen. What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur. Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
It's better in the sense of the economy being shit and if we were to radically invest a lot in upgrading stuff less money would go to taking care of people. Essentially, the discussion is a gamble between when we think the most people will suffer. While upgrading or when the shit hits the fan. We will see.
|
On July 26 2012 07:19 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:06 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:51 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:
[quote]
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another... Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe). Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)? Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory? I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane. edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye. Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors. Bolded is speculation, obviously. That's who I mean. You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way. I could be right. Not everyone could be. Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy. And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for. And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place.
Well it doesn't negate it. It takes a hundred years to repay the "debt". Stop chopping down trees to burn them for energy. Burn oil instead. It's a fuckton better for the environment. I like trees. I like the environment. I think us humans should live more in big fucking cities instead of putting a strain on the environment. I think we should stop building dams, wind turbines, and shit like that, and instead use nuclear power which is much cleaner and safer. I think we should use oil until we find something better, instead of destroying wildlife to grow crops. I think we should stop believing theories that are pushed by politicians with an agenda.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On July 26 2012 07:27 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:19 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:06 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:51 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:
[quote]
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another... Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe). Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)? Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory? I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane. edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye. Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors. Bolded is speculation, obviously. That's who I mean. You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way. I could be right. Not everyone could be. Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy. And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for. And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place. Well it doesn't negate it. It takes a hundred years to repay the "debt". Stop chopping down trees to burn them for energy. Burn oil instead. It's a fuckton better for the environment. I like trees. I like the environment. I think us humans should live more in big fucking cities instead of putting a strain on the environment. I think we should stop building dams, wind turbines, and shit like that, and instead use nuclear power which is much cleaner and safer. I think we should use oil until we find something better, instead of destroying wildlife to grow crops. I think we should stop believing theories that are pushed by politicians with an agenda.
For what it's worth, we don't build many dams any more-- most dammable rivers, in the US at least, have already been dammed.
|
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
lol, someone said trite?
|
Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation.
Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
|
On July 26 2012 06:48 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote:
Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so. Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
I really hope trolling or you have horrific reading comprehension... I never said we have perfect knowledge because any logical person knows that is not possible. All science is theories that as time go on will either be essentially proven (heart pumps blood, water good, blood carries oxygen) or disproven (flat earth etc etc).
But we will never know anything 100% because you cant prove a negative. You can't prove to me that the moon doesn't have living beings on it because we haven't found them yet. Just like climate change/humans mutilating the earth dont have a negative effect there is shit loads of evidence that it does BUT I can't 100% prove that it doesn't no one can or will ever be able to.
It is really ignorant to think nearly 7 billion people can't fuck up earth beyond repair. I forget the exact number but if you went a billion seconds back in time from now you would be somewhere in the 1970s imagine that times 7... All the trees we cut and burn all of the cars ships planes trains ovens heaters the cows we harvest and other things pump shit loads of green house gases into the air. Idk why people fight going a bit greener so hard... Sustainability is usually a good thing. It just screams of ignorance and too much fox news to hate changing how humanity does things to make life better for those down the road.
People Waiting for an imaginary wizard friend to come from the sky to tell us absolute truths is just horrifying that people still think like this.
(stupid phone auto correcting ;()
|
On July 26 2012 07:39 Mr.Faces wrote:Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation. Show nested quote +Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
Yeah it's worded a bit strangely and the OP is blowing it way out of proportions. What it seems like is happening is that the temperature has increased above zero degrees celsius all over the place, which obviously leads to melting. It's a spike in the temperature, but doesn't mean anything as a singular event. Now if it pertains to exist it might be a problem. Or all the water in the middle might get trapped and start forming lakes that when the temperature decreases again will start freezing again.
The bad part is when the temperature drops near the coast, so that zones that are holding up large masses of ice deteriorate and crack so that the huge icebergs are formed.
|
On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote:
Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still.
Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago?
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/30a849l.gif)
|
|
|
So does this mean the name Greenland won't be such a misnomer any more?
|
The title is missleading as it even says in the article this happens every 150 years or so and was to be expected. "strange and sudden"
Also this is a hatefest -.-
|
On July 26 2012 08:21 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote:
Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument? Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still. Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago?
Lol. I think its funny that you keep posting that graph and yet you have no idea what it actually means.
Imean humans evolved on the earth so we are just as natural as anything else. You could argue that this whole debate is pointless because all causes of climate change are natural.
Anyways - the reason "But look it was hotter than this a hundred million years ago" doesn't matter is that we weren't here then. 4.5 billion years ago the Earth's average temperature was molten lava. I defy you to survive in molten lava. 300 million years ago the atmosphere was so oxygen rich that dragonflies were a meter long and thunderstorms were basically terrifying pillars of flaming hell-blasts from the sky. If the atmospheric oxygen level started rising would you be like "oh don't worry it was like this in the Cambrian Period?" because I would be like "Oh shit, while we can get kinda high on air now, this will certainly have more drastic and catastrophic implications."
The fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in temperature growth that has been occurring over the past hundred years or so. Even if global climate obeys its historical pattern - that means we are headed for the worst ice age since the time of the Alaskan Land-Bridge and Mastodon hunting. Whatever human contribution there may be - it is helping to perpetuate a rise that must fall at some point. And when that temperature growth comes crashing down - Hell is gonna freeze over, literally.
|
im so glad i slept through the last few pages of this thread
|
On July 26 2012 10:03 Arghmyliver wrote:
The fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in temperature growth that has been occurring over the past hundred years or so.
The fact is there are claims of blah blah blah but there are problems with the data, problems with the models, failed prediction after failed prediction, and stupid claims of weird things going on, like this suddenly disappeared ice, that actually aren't so weird. But hey if it gives politicians an excuse to increase their power over the little evil common people who are ruining everything, who cares, right?
|
On July 26 2012 07:39 Mr.Faces wrote:Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation. Show nested quote +Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
Yeah, it's basically as if someone drove a Zamboni over Greenland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
