EPTIPCC: Humans are primary cause of Climate Change - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:14 Sefer wrote: It's not counter-intuitive in the least. The average temperature of the Earth fluctuates wildly. There's many factors other than global warming, such as the solar cycle and volcanic ash blocking out sunlight.Well the article I read used the term "pause", but even if it was a decrease in the rate of warming in the last 15 years, that would seem counterintuitive if we are to buy in the the theory that green-house gases are the cause, right? I wouldn't be surprised if we produce more pollution in 1 year now than in 10-20 years in 1951 and decades following. It's an utterly trivial, basic scientific concept. A function with lots of periodic terms, and a secular term which will eventually dominate the periodic terms. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:23 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote: Who cares what YOU would take? Nobody cares about your opinion. The vast majority of people would take life over death. The vast majority of people are quite aware that living in China would be preferable to living on Venus.I love how you narrow the entire argument down to reproduction. Obviously that wasn't the only thing I was referring to, and obviously when you talk about "stupid humans" you are referring to more than our propensity to reproduce a lot. If the choice is authoritarian statism or a damaged environment, I'll take a damaged environment. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:23 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote: I love how you narrow the entire argument down to reproduction. Obviously that wasn't the only thing I was referring to, and obviously when you talk about "stupid humans" you are referring to more than our propensity to reproduce a lot. If the choice is authoritarian statism or a damaged environment, I'll take a damaged environment. You do understand you are quoting two different people, right? But still, we'll give it a go. Problem: Rate of resource consumption and environmental destruction unsustainable. Solution: Reduce resource consumption by limiting the use of modern appliances and technology. Projection: Not good, odds of convincing enough people to give up fossil fuel, industrialized agriculture, invest heavily into alternative energy sources, make personal sacrifices for the sake of the planet? Rather low. Alternative solution: Reduce number of consumers, i.e. humans, thereby reducing overall rate of resource consumption. The person who said that we would have to basically to back to the stone ages was right, we have gotten too used to modern comforts and tools, and most people lack the perspective to put the species before themselves. As long as there is money to be made by raping our planet and as long as no personal repercussions result from living the way we are, zero fucks will be given. If individual humans simply cannot be trusted to have the foresight and self-control needed, we need fewer individual humans. It's not exactly rocket science. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it. We get these reports over and over from mostly western scientists yet the usa still has not signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. Tons of people here on the forum also say how bad it is and that something must be done, though my guess is less then 5% of them actually votes for a "green" party, or a guy like ralph nadar in the states, and i think noone here drives a prius lol. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:28 GhastlyUprising wrote: Trivial? For someone who keeps hearing that human activity is the cause (without further nuance, so 1-dimensional) of global warming, the addition of extra influences isn't trivial at all. Especially not if they apparently are in the same order of magnitude.It's not counter-intuitive in the least. The average temperature of the Earth fluctuates wildly. There's many factors other than global warming, such as the solar cycle and volcanic ash blocking out sunlight. It's an utterly trivial, basic scientific concept. A function with lots of periodic terms, and a secular term which will eventually dominate the periodic terms. I would get annoyed as well. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
On September 28 2013 04:26 9heart wrote: Just wanted to point out that during the Mesozoic the globe was essentially a swamp. Average temperatures were higher than today by about 10°C. By the middle Cretaceous, equatorial ocean waters were as warm as 20°C in the deep ocean. Ocean waters were displaced by as much as 200 m (656 ft). The Mesozoic era began in the wake of the Permian–Triassic extinction event, the largest well-documented mass extinction in Earth's history (approx. 99.6% of all species went extinct). Those who claim the small flux in our current environment to be destructive seem to forget that during the Mesozoic, the first non-avian dinosaurs, birds, and mammals all flourished. News flash: the climate is has always been, and will always be, in flux. "On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." --Chuck Palahnuik, Fight Club yes, it has been in flux at all times. This "flux" also cause millions and billions of species to go extinct. I guess that is what people do not get. "Protecting the enviroment" is not about saving Earth or saving nature. Because Earth and nature dont give a fuck and will always be there until the sun swallows them. It is actually about saving the humans. We are dependend on specific living conditions, which we are currently apparently changing. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote: FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh. The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. And even if it were the case that the EU countries and NA were solely responsible, it actually does not matter at this point. We are beyond pointing fingers and playing the blame game. This is about survival. Do we want our great-great grandchildren to have an inhabitable planet or not? That is the only relevant concern. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
We dont vote for green partys,we drive our fuel inefficient cars, and then we come here on forum to say how bad global warming is. It just doesnt make sense to me somehow. Off course there are exceptions to this and some people do vote for green partys and use public transpost, but i think this goes only for a small minority of the people posting on this thread. Maybe some people use public transport because they still at college, but as soon as they can buy a fuel inefficient car they will, and as soon as they get a decent job they vote for the conservative and traditional partys, and then we all start pointing towards china and india when global warming pops up. Sry,but am quiet cynical regarding this. meh. ps: pls dont be offended if you are actually one of thoose people who does vote for green partys and drives a prius or uses public transpost out of free will. | ||
|
Hier
2391 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:48 Rassy wrote: I laughed at the 'out of free will' part. :')The hypocrisy is that we complain about it alot but dont do annything to prevent it. We dont vote for green partys,we drive our fuel inefficient cars, and then we come here on forum to say how bad global warming is. It just doesnt make sense to me somehow. Off course there are exceptions to this and some people do vote for green partys and use public transpost, but i think this goes only for a small minority of the people posting on this thread. Maybe some people use public transport because they still at college, but as soon as they can buy a fuel inefficient car they will, and as soon as they get a decent job they vote for the conservative and traditional partys, and then we all start pointing towards china and india when global warming pops up. Sry,but am quiet cynical regarding this. meh. ps: pls dont be offended if you are actually one of thoose people who does vote for green partys and drives a prius or uses public transpost out of free will. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:48 Rassy wrote: The hypocrisy is that we complain about it alot but dont do annything to prevent it. We dont vote for green partys,we drive our fuel inefficient cars, and then we come here on forum to say how bad global warming is. It just doesnt make sense to me somehow. Off course there are exceptions to this and some people do vote for green partys and use public transpost, but i think this goes only for a small minority of the people posting on this thread. Maybe some people use public transport because they still at college, but as soon as they can buy a fuel inefficient car they will, and as soon as they get a decent job they vote for the conservative and traditional partys, and then we all start pointing towards china and india when global warming pops up. Sry,but am quiet cynical regarding this. meh. ps: pls dont be offended if you are actually one of thoose people who does vote for green partys and drives a prius or uses public transpost out of free will. It's only hypocritical if you somehow, by whatever logical fault, say that it's these scientists that are also in power of the political structure and the state. It would be hypocritical if it was the central legislative body that put out this report. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:55 koreasilver wrote: I think he means people are hypocritical for thinking global warming is bad, but not acting like they do. It's not directly connected to the report.It's only hypocritical if you somehow, by whatever logical fault, say that it's these scientists that are also in power of the political structure and the state. It would be hypocritical if it was the central legislative body that put out this report. | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:50 Hier wrote: So shouldn't the title read "IPCC" instead of "IPPC"? No because IPCC doesn't make you laugh when you read it out loud. Truthfully I don't understand all the doomsaying about climate change. People act as if it's a nuke that will go off if we don't do anything about it TODAY. | ||
|
Subject011
Sweden32 Posts
Enough with the pretentions aswell. You lot disregard all relevant reports/papers that doesn't fit the dogma and support your cause. In Orwellian fashion they go poof. You're far more priests and acolytes than scholars. Every five years since the seventies you've predicted the apocalypse. Even after all this time, all this failure - you still hold your heads so high... | ||
|
TheOneWhoKnocks
160 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:32 GhastlyUprising wrote: Who cares what YOU would take? Nobody cares about your opinion. The vast majority of people would take life over death. The vast majority of people are quite aware that living in China would be preferable to living on Venus. Eh, I can post whether you care or not. Sucks for you I guess, since you take it so personally. Not much you can do except continue whining and offering false dilemma fallacies, like saying we either get statism or Venus. (lol?) On September 28 2013 06:33 Squat wrote: The person who said that we would have to basically go back to the stone ages was right That person was me, by the way  I just prefer natural selection to artificial selection. I don't think humans are as brilliant as they like to fancy themselves. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On September 28 2013 06:48 Rassy wrote: The hypocrisy is that we complain about it alot but dont do annything to prevent it. We dont vote for green partys,we drive our fuel inefficient cars, and then we come here on forum to say how bad global warming is. It just doesnt make sense to me somehow. Off course there are exceptions to this and some people do vote for green partys and use public transpost, but i think this goes only for a small minority of the people posting on this thread. Maybe some people use public transport because they still at college, but as soon as they can buy a fuel inefficient car they will, and as soon as they get a decent job they vote for the conservative and traditional partys, and then we all start pointing towards china and india when global warming pops up. Sry,but am quiet cynical regarding this. meh. ps: pls dont be offended if you are actually one of thoose people who does vote for green partys and drives a prius or uses public transpost out of free will. I vote green, I don't drive, I avoid having children, I look for eco-friendly products in the store. Basically all I can do on a personal level without completely giving up my education and future career. It's not much, but as previously stated, it has to start somewhere. But as long as we cannot expect everyone to conform to a non self-centered life-style(or perhaps rather a non-family/tribe centered lifestyle), we cannot rely on humans to solve the problems that humans created by their most basic nature to begin with. All we can do is try to limit the amount of humans available to destroy things. Enough with the teenage angst and foolish hyperbole (looking at you Squat). It is well documented - utterly indisputable - that the average temperature on an annual basis hasn't risen anywhere on planet Earth during the last 15 years, this coicides with the greatest release of CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of human civilization. And you people dream of state-enforced population-control and god knows what other draconian and horrific measures? Enough with the pretentions aswell. You lot disregard all relevant reports/papers that doesn't fit your dogma and support your cause. In Orwellian fashion they go poof. You're far more priests and acolytes than scholars. Every five years since the seventies you've predicted the apocalypse. Even after all this time, all this failure - you still hold you're heads so high... The 15 year argument again, really? You don't even understand the science involved. There is no debate about global warming about serious scientists, keep spouting your ad hominems and weak attempts to get under my skin all you like. Show me any credible report or paper that would not get laughed at by any serious group of experts. No one is predicting a 2012 style apocalypse, and if you think that is what is being said, you again don't really understand anything. Enough indeed, enough with your nonsensical, incoherent, scientifically illiterate rambling, it is tiresome. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 28 2013 02:56 Squat wrote: You try to make a case that IPPC, a very well respected organisation, is somehow untrustworthy, and to support this assertion you link to something from Fox News? It's like saying NASA is full of stupid people because Krusty the Clown said so. I linked the Telegraph too. It DID happen. The IPPC shouldn't be taken at face value. No organization should. | ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
Or is this just a matter of "saving humans" because if that's the case, then how can we change what has been going on for millions of years. | ||
|
Leeto
United States1320 Posts
The sad thing is that there isn't much we can do about it. Even if the entire USA goes completely green, other industrial nations like China or India who don't really care all that much will keep on doing what they're doing. Things have to get REALLY BAD before people collectively start doing something about it. | ||
| ||
