|
HUMANS CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently finished its comprehensive study on the physical science basis on climate change and will soon be releasing the report in stages over a 14-month period. This article is a summary of the report for our discussion.
REPORT OVERVIEW
The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
OBSERVATIONS
Widespread changes in the atmosphere are observed across spatial and temporal scales. Strong evidence has emerged that the physical and biogeochemical state of the oceans has changed during the past forty years. Important parts of the cryosphere, in particular the extent and volume of snow and ice, have changed over the latter half of the 20th century. Paleoclimate archives provide quantitative information on the range of naturally driven changes in the climate system on time scales from centuries to millions of years
Atmosphere
Widespread warming is observed from the surface of the Earth throughout the troposphere and cooling is identified in the stratosphere. Globally averaged near surface temperatures have increased since the beginning of the 20th century and the warming has been particularly marked since the 1970s. Each of the last three decades has been significantly warmer than all preceding decades since 1850.
Ocean
Based on independent observational systems and datasets, and their agreement, it is virtually certain that the upper ocean has warmed since 1971, and that ocean warming dominates the change in the global energy content. Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m), decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m, for the time period 1971 to 2010. It is likely
that the deep ocean has warmed below 3000 m depth since the 1990s. The global ocean has warmed at a rate of <0.01°C per decade below 4000 m over this time interval. It is very likely that the Southern Ocean has warmed throughout the full ocean depth since the 1990s, at a rate of about 0.03°C per decade.
Cryosphere
More comprehensive and improved observations strengthen the evidence that the i
ce sheets are losing mass, glaciers are shrinking globally, sea ice cover is reducing in the Arctic, and snow cover is decreasing and permafrost is thawing in the Northern Hemisphere. Ice is being lost from many of the components of the cryosphere, although there are significant regional differences in the rates of loss. There is very high confidence that globally, glaciers continue to shrink and lose mass, but there is less agreement on the rates of mass loss. Recent estimates of global glacier mass loss based on independent methods range from 210 [145 to 275] Gt yr to 371 [321 to 421] Gt yr –1, based on different time windows since 2003.
Sea level
It is unequivocal that global mean sea level is rising as is evident from tide gauge records and satellite data. Over the 20th century the mean rate of increase was between 1.4 to 2.0 mm yr, and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr since 1993. It is likely
that rates of increase were similar to the latter between 1930 and 1950
Carbon and other Biogeochemical quantities
More than half of the total carbon emitted by human activities has been taken up by the ocean and the land since 1750. The remainder has caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration by over 40% since 1750, and by about 10% since 1990.
Paleoclimactic Records
Analyses of a number of independent paleoclimatic archives provide a multi-century perspective of Northern Hemisphere temperature and indicate that 1981–2010 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
DRIVERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Natural and anthropogenic drivers cause imbalances in the Earth's energy budget. The strongest anthropogenic drivers are changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosols. These can now be quantified in more detail. Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively. Other drivers also influence climate on global and particularly regional scales.
Evaluation of Climate Models
Development of climate models has resulted in more realism in the representation of many quantities and aspects of the climate system, including large scale precipita
tion, Arctic sea ice, ocean heat content, extreme events, and the climate effects of stratospheric ozone.
Key Metrics Characterizing Anthropogenic Climate Change
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely. The total amount of anthropogenic emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases largely determines the warming in the 21st century. The global mean warming per 1000 PgC is very likely between 0.8°C–3°C.
PROJECTIONS
Projections of changes in the climate system are based on simulations using a hierarchy of climate models ranging from simple climate models, to models of intermediate complexity, and comprehensive Earth System Models. These models simulate changes based on a variety of scenarios of natural and anthropogenic forcings.
Near-Term Projections: Atmosphere
A future volcanic eruption similar in size to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo would cause a rapid drop in global mean surface air temperature of several tenths of 1°C in the following year, with recovery over the next few years. Possible future reductions in solar irradiance would reduce global mean surface air temperature, but such cooling is
unlikely to exceed –0.1°C by 2050.
Near-Term Projections: Ocean
It is virtually certain that globally-averaged surface and upper ocean (top 700 m) temperatures averaged over 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005.
Near-Term Projections: Cryosphere
It is very likely that there will be continued loss of sea ice extent in the Arctic, decreases of snow cover, and reductions of permafrost at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere by 2016–2035. Using RCP4.5, Arctic sea ice area is projected to decr
ease by 28% for September and 6% for February; Northern Hemisphere snow cover area is projected to decrease by 4.0 [2.1 to 5.9] % (one standard deviation) for a March-April average; annual mean near-surface permafrost is projected to decrease by
18%.
Long-Term Projections: Temperature
By mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario. For RCP4.5, 6.0 and 8.5, global mean surface air temperatures are projected to at least likely exceed 2°C warming with respect to preindustrial by 2100, and about as likely as not to be above 2°C warming for RCP2.6.
Long-Term Projections: Water Cycle
Changes in precipitation in a warming world will not be uniform. The high latitudes are very likely to experience larger amounts of precipitation. Many regions in the mid-latitudes that are arid and semi-arid will likely experience less precipitation, while those that are moist will likely receive more precipitation. While there is high confidence
in patterns of these changes, there is only low confidence in the magnitude
Long-Term Projections: Sea Level
It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios. Together, ocean thermal expansion and glaciers are very likely to make the largest contributions during the 21st century.
Long-Term Projections: Climate Stabilization, Commitment and Irreversibility
Many aspects of climate change will persist for centuries even if concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilised. This represents a substantial multi-century commitment created by human activities today. Emission pathways that
likely limit warming below 2°C above pre-industrial by 2100 indicate that CO2 equivalent emissions cannot exceed 8.5–12.6 PgC yr by 2020, and 4.6–6.3 PgC yr by 2050. Continuing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2100 as in the RCP8.5 extension induces a total radiative forcing above W m by 2300 that leads to a warming of 8.7 [5.0–11.6] °C by 2300 relative to 1986–2005. Substantial sustained reductions of emissions beyond 2100 could keep the total radiative forcing below 2 W m by 2300, as for example in the RCP2.6 extension, which reduces the warming to 0.6 [0.3–1.0] °C by 2300. For scenarios driven by carbon dioxide alone, global average temperature is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emissions. Thus a large fraction of climate change is largely irreversible
on human time scales, except if net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.
Surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to exceed accumulation for global mean surface air temperature over 3.1 [1.9–4.6] °C above preindustrial, leading to ongoing decay of the ice sheet. The loss of the Greenland ice sheet is not inevitable,
because surface melting has long time scales and it might re-grow to most of its original volume if global temperatures decline. However, a significant decay of the ice sheet may be irreversible.
Source
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
Would prefer Humans "Attribute" to Climate Change because that what the report says xD
They said it,s 95% certain Humans have "contributed" to Climate Change with Pollution etc, and that the global sea level will rise by 80cm before the end of the century.
Dominant? I don't think that is the right wording
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), delivered in Stockholm, warns that it is now 95% certain that global temperatures are rising and that human activity is to blame.
Is how i see it, that they just contribute. They can't pin point the exact cause of climate change, but they know pollution effects it as well as
The IPCC is under pressure from governments to explain why the rise in global surface temperatures has stalled over the last 15 years. Sceptics argue it is evidence computer models of the climate are wrong. But scientists counter that the planet warms in fits and starts. They point to evidence that an upwelling of cold water in the Pacific Ocean has absorbed heat from the atmosphere - but that is only temporary.
Another quote that needs addressing fast is who is right and what isn't.
This is unwelcome news so people want to shoot the messenger," he said.
"What people tend to do is look at some little piece of the jigsaw and say 'look this demonstrates that it's not real or it's not happening' and then they feel better because they don't have to worry about it.
"But the whole exercise that the IPCC is going through is to look at the whole picture and see the general patterns that emerge. It's the pattern in the reduction of snow and ice and increasing temperature that says there is something odd going on here."
Another point that needs watching closely, the way the Earth flexes in climate has been going on for YEARS. I watched a famous documentary on it from Professor Hawking back a few years ago when he was on about the North and South Pole locations change geometrically which can help contribute to crazy weather patterns and also they predicted that this is the reason for ice ages. The only evidence they have or theory i can't remember the exact wording, is that the polar shift theory is the axis of the earth moves, and over the 200million years they predict it has moved by 55 degrees. Thus this the reason for the random weather events. But it is obviously more complex than just that, but it is also another reason you can throw into the occasion and i prefer to put my eggs into this basket as well as pollution being a problem.
This discussion can go on all day and night with me as i just don't understand how we have came some 150years of using heavy polluting machines/cars etcetc and it is still getting worst and worst? Industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year or since the last record of data yet we are saying that is the reason? But what about the 100 years prior to this day why wasn't it getting worst back then? It is very interesting!
Pole Shift Hypothesis
|
AUFKLARUNG takes his name serious
|
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it.
|
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice.
|
On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice.
The problem with the acceleration caused by humans is that combined with extensive environmental destruction it is putting a huge strain on the ecosystem. The average layman probably does not appreciate how vital biodiversity is to, well everyone.
Still, ignoramuses and people with zero knowledge of the actual facts or even a basic understanding of the science involved will continue to claim that "the science is inconclusive!" and "there is not a scientific consensus!" because the oil companies managed to drum up some third rate huckster that they could pay to sit on talkshows and claim that global warming is not greatly affected by humans.
|
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate.
|
On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice.
"climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years.
On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate.
why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc)
|
On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it.
Intriguingly two of the german main contributors to the panel called themselves sceptics, b/c as they said it is the scientific approach to be skeptical until a hypothesis is proven.
Many of the proponents and profiteers of the climate change media hype try to shift the debate from a facts based "right or wrong" to a moral based "good vs evil", which is extremely questionable in my eyes. A somber climate discussion instead would be nice, but seems far away with an aggressive frenzied Earth cult on one side and paid by Exxon et al scientists on the other.
|
No, they don't..
User was banned for this post and fifteen!!! previous mod actions for throwaway shitty one liners like it.
|
On September 28 2013 00:09 Sinedd wrote:
No, they don't..
What is this even supposed to mean?
|
On September 28 2013 00:12 Squat wrote:What is this even supposed to mean?
obviously cars and big oil and cow farts are the cause, not humans
|
On September 28 2013 00:13 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:12 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 00:09 Sinedd wrote:
No, they don't.. What is this even supposed to mean? obviously cars and big oil and cow farts are the cause, not humans
Semantics, we meet again!
|
On September 28 2013 00:13 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:12 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 00:09 Sinedd wrote:
No, they don't.. What is this even supposed to mean? obviously cars and big oil and cow farts are the cause, not humans
You Sir are a true gentleman and scholar for pointing this out. Solution is simple then: Stop driving cars, eating cows and using oil in general. Thank god all this can be done by humans, not cars, cows or oil....
|
Edit, forgot to get a science degree before coming here.
|
Title is a bit misleading; though you do correct it in the body of the piece itself. Humans are not the sole cause, but humans are exacerbating the situation through polution etc.
|
On September 28 2013 00:32 sekritzzz wrote:
I know I'm going against the current here, but climate change advocates should consider giving up. Its a losing battle. Most common people in the world simply don't care. Let alone business men with their factories. People around the world have more pressing issues to care about, like getting food on their table at night.
Climate change is the last thing most people of the world even think of. Even if they all understood it, I doubt they would even care that much in the short term to change their habits. The only semi-serious people about it are Europeans, and to be frank they hardly dent the world population. My take on it is that humans will adapt. If UV rays are burning us, or rising sea levels threaten us, we will adapt. If we don't adapt and die, then that's the world for you. Climate change won't be taken seriously unless the harmful effects are actually hurting people right now, right here. That is just how humans are.
That's the legacy of the being a barely evolved primate a hair's breadth away from a chimp in action.
The important thing in the long run is not necessarily to preserve human life specifically, but at least try to preserve the potential for some advanced form of life on this planet at all.
|
It's hard to believe this without thinking the people that come up with "climate change" are a bunch of tin foil hat wearing whack jobs. My mom once told me that the temperature in the house is going up, so what now there is climate change in our house? The temperature went back to normal later. Same thing here, these guys have no way of proving anything and there is no danger so what are they trying to do other than create conspiracies.
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it.
What, over 9000!?!?!?
User was warned for this post
|
United States5162 Posts
|
What is up with this sudden influx of scientifically illiterate imbeciles dropping their stupid bombs here? Come one TL, I expect better than weak trolling on this of all sites.
|
edit, removed previous comment on subject: What the hell? I guess I need to be "scientifically literate" to talk on this subject without most people getting banned/mocked. Some comments might be misinformed but outright bans? I guess i'll leave this conversation to more "scientifically literate" people for them to discuss amongst themselves whilst 99% of the population gets along with this life.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
On September 28 2013 00:42 Myles wrote:
Adjusted thread title
Still think that is wrong ^_^
I think the proper title should be like what i said in my reply,
"Humans CONTRIBUTE to Climate Change"
The report is very different depending where you read it from, and the other sites basically read it as "they attribute" to climate change. So i think just Attribute/Contribute should be title.
|
On September 28 2013 00:47 sekritzzz wrote:
edit, removed previous comment on subject: What the hell? I guess I need to be "scientifically literate" to talk on this subject without most people getting banned/mocked. Some comments might be misinformed but outright bans? I guess i'll leave this conversation to more "scientifically literate" people for them to discuss amongst themselves whilst 99% of the population gets along with this life.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png)
This picture from wikipedia shows the temperature variations over a large time period. The report this topic is about says we can expect 8 degrees in 200-300 years. On top of the already hot average temperature. Meaning we go outside the previous scale.
Edit, was meant for the previous post of sekritzzz before he edited it away.
|
United States5162 Posts
You don't have to have a PhD, but some general intelligence would be nice. You can't make a throw away one liner or compare the climate of your house to the globe and says it all a conspiracy, and being PBU doesn't help either.
|
The human race as we know it will cease to exist relatively soon from an evolutionary perspective regardless. Every species is transitory, whatever humanoids inhabit the earth in 500 000 years will be as different from us as we are to the first bipedal primates.
This is not just about us, it's about life on this planet. We are its temporary custodians, and if we destroy it, we ruin the possibility of any potential intelligent life in the future. It's like some woman on nature world said; When our descendants look back on us, will they remember us as one of the great apes, or just that greedy ape.
What the hell? I guess I need to be "scientifically literate" to talk on this subject without most people getting banned/mocked. Some comments might be misinformed but outright bans? I guess i'll leave this conversation to more "scientifically literate" people for them to discuss amongst themselves whilst 99% of the population gets along with this life.
Because it's a part of the problem, uninformed opinions in reality do little but muddle and dilute the conversation. Contrary to popular opinion, there are not two sides to every coin. In science, more often than not, someone is right and someone is wrong. I don't offer my take on how to perform an open heart surgery, because it would be worthless, because I don't know nearly enough.
|
United States5162 Posts
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
On September 28 2013 01:00 Myles wrote:
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked.
Adaptations of a water filled earth would be interesting though? I mean with floods and sea levels rising, underwater living could be a future? All be it right now a really far away one, but that is the only way you adapt to less land space?
|
Well yes, I probably should have clarified that. Apologies.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 28 2013 01:03 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:00 Myles wrote:
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked. Adaptations of a water filled earth would be interesting though? I mean with floods and sea levels rising, underwater living could be a future? All be it right now a really far away one, but that is the only way you adapt to less land space?
That would cool, sure. But it will have to come after the recourse wars.
edit: To clarify, I think it's highly likely that if we start having actual coastal flooding that land pressure combined with increase cost of doing everything will lead to increased violence and potentially major wars so that countries can continue living the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
|
lol people obviously can't read. human are the cause of climate means: human activity is the cause of climate change.
for those who still don't "believe" (cause frankly its fact proven) in 2013 that climatic changes are cause by human activity, its time to stick your head out of your legs. YES glaciation and climate change go through cycles, yet human activity has accelerated the process of general world heating that should have happened years and years later. What is sure to happen, though, as we've "seen"(via studies), is that in the previous heating phase there has been a general disparition of SPECIES. We can safely conclude that when we reach the 3 more degrees(in term of ocean temperature) required : we will die, with most of the species. And the left species, most likely to be insects/bacterias/and small organisms who can adapt to much larger environment changes quicker will eat and clean our dead remains so we can return to the earth,
|
On September 28 2013 01:00 Myles wrote:
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked.
no we're acutally going to die my man. like most species did in the last climate cyclic phase.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 28 2013 01:09 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:00 Myles wrote:
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked. no we're acutally going to die my man. like most species did in the last climate cyclic phase.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'last climate cyclic phase', but we've made it through a number of ice ages and larger changes in temp before. The entire world isn't going to turn into a desert.
|
On September 28 2013 01:03 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:00 Myles wrote:
We're not going to end life life on earth or the potential for future intelligent life. If multiple asteroid impacts causing years of blackness didn't end life, climate change certainly isn't. Life will adapt just fine, even people. Civilization is the thing that will be fucked. Adaptations of a water filled earth would be interesting though? I mean with floods and sea levels rising, underwater living could be a future? All be it right now a really far away one, but that is the only way you adapt to less land space?
Surely you've seen _Waterworld_ with Kevin Costner. Made in 1995, it was one of the first films to tackle climate change in a sci-fi setting. It sets up a panoramic landscape in which the world is now covered in water, and the realistic ways that civilization might adapt.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc)
Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems.
|
On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems.
What the fuck are you smoking man? "The larger the molecules are"?
Water volume actually changes very little as a function of temperature. Less than 0.01% per Kelvin. Water level is rising because of melting ice.
|
On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems.
Read this, higher temperature doesn't actually have any effect on the size of the molecules, it pretty much means they're moving around more so they have more space in between them on average.
On topic: I think that this is not exactly good news, it means that we'll have to find and use alternative means of producing energy, which will be a very costly process.
|
On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems.
I would think that the melting of glaciers dwarves any molecular effects when it comes to rising water and afaik it is not the molecules expanding as much as them moving more.
The question on deep ocean is not too bad. The answer is 1. deep pcean is an energysink and thus "filling" it will accelerate other effects of the extra energy in the system 2. deep ocean and surface waters do mix to some degree. The hundreds of years are likely more of a statistical probability for a molecule to circulate, but the question has to be a little more specific to be answered more specifically.
|
On September 28 2013 01:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems. What the fuck are you smoking man? "The larger the molecules are"? Water volume actually changes very little as a function of temperature. Less than 0.01% per Kelvin. Water level is rising because of melting ice.
It is above 0.02% per Kelvin around the 20 C mark. The variation is smaller closer to 4 C though, which is where you are right. Considering some ocean surfaces go toward 30 C the variation is even larger in some places.
An increase in volume of all the water by 0.01% is still a MAJOR deal...
|
United States5162 Posts
I think the biggest fear regarding warming oceans deep layer vs shallow is effecting the thermohaline circulation, similar to how they think the Younger Dryas was caused by a massive fresh water influx into the northern Atlantic. Even a small, but constant change in density and salinity could effect it in unknown ways.
|
On September 28 2013 01:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 01:20 Kipsate wrote:On September 28 2013 00:05 synapse wrote:On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice. "climate change" is indeed a bit of a misnomer; the accelerated change in weather patterns, temperatures, sea levels etc. would obviously count as "climate change" but comprise of something far more serious than the normal climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last few million years. On September 28 2013 00:05 a176 wrote:
How exactly can the deep ocean be warming as a result of human interference when it takes hundreds of years for the ocean current to circulate. why would ocean current matter if global warming is occurring on a global scale? (and besides, it's the surface temperature that matters since it directly contributes to precipitation / melting of glaciers / etc) Sea temprature actually does matter a ton because the warmer the water, the larger the molucules are and thus the water volume and sea level rises. Rising sea levels can cause all sorts of problems. What the fuck are you smoking man? "The larger the molecules are"? Water volume actually changes very little as a function of temperature. Less than 0.01% per Kelvin. Water level is rising because of melting ice.
Yes, but it is still a significant amount of expansion when your volume is as large as the oceans. Conversely, melting sea ice has a minimal effect on sea levels because it already displaces the water it is floating in.
|
Yes, but it is still a significant amount of expansion when your volume is as large as the oceans. Conversely, melting sea ice has a minimal effect on sea levels because it already displaces the water it is floating in.
Think of glaciers and antarctica, there is solid land beneath the ice, so it´s melting adds to oceans volumina.
Okay, since 100 years we use cars. since 150 years we burn coal to make steam. No we ruined it all ?
|
|
|
I'm not optimistic. Even the Guardian comments have been taken over with wall-to-wall, climate-change-denying fanatics, who never shut up about the "pause", even after it's been amply rebutted by the scientific community.
It's not only the result of how effectively big business can spread propaganda. Another factor is that these people are soulless husks without a moral sense or indeed any sense of shame. These are people who consciously tell lies for a living. People who pride themselves on their careers of enriching themselves at the expense of their employees.
You have a community whose job it is to find out the truth, guided by a tradition that safeguards intellectual integrity, pitted against businessmen who are thoroughly immersed in a culture of greed and lies and deception.
|
My opinion and I apologize if I offend people that studied the issue closely (unlike me) is that the change in atmosphere composition being the cause of global warming is bullshit.
However I agree that if there is a global warming it is caused by humans.
My opinion based on what I experience as a single individual is that the global warming is caused by agriculture and urbanization.
It is well know the fact that the heat transfer is made in 3 ways: conduction, convection and radiation.
We are interested in heat transfer by radiation since our sun is not directly or indirectly to earth.
It is also well known that the color of the surface of irradiated object has a strong influence in heat transfer due to radiation absorption/refraction. (try wearing a black versus a white shirt in the summer)
So where does that leave us?
The urbanization came with an ever increase length in roads. In the last century the surface covered by asphalt has increased exponential.
You can notice the effect quite easily by alternating moving between a medium size city and country side during summers.
Also the increase in agriculture came with a drop in forests surface and barren lands.
During the winter in temperate climate the cultivated area is usually plowed resulting in a darker shade of brown than that of the foliage and/or dead vegetation.
For me it seems absurd that the change in the composition of a medium without changing its refraction, conduction and absorption indices could result in a temperature change. (Ie changing the CO2 composition in atmosphere)
But than again I paid attention to elementary physics lessons instead of sensationalist media.
My opinion is that most of the people debating this subject read something they do not understand diagonally and draw the wrong conclusion.
|
On September 28 2013 02:18 tertos wrote:
For me it seems absurd that the change in the composition of a medium without changing its refraction, conduction and absorption indices could result in a temperature change. (Ie changing the CO2 composition in atmosphere)
But than again I paid attention to elementary physics lessons instead of sensationalist media.
Because carbon dioxide is transparent (mostly) to the solar radiation, but is opaque to reflected thermal radiation. So solar energy reaches the earth, passes through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to it's higher energy, gets absorbed by the earth and then re-released as lower energy radiation that attempts to leave the planet - but is partly blocked from leaving by the carbon dioxide. The blocked heat is re-emitted back to earth as additional heat.
So increasing the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air (and some other gases as well, I think methane?) increases the amount of heat energy retained by the atmosphere.
Venus is the prime example of greenhouse gas effect.
|
I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion:
The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
|
On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: Show nested quote +The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s.
Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
|
On September 28 2013 02:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s. Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
This is exactly how we should do science from now on. We just assume shit. That should work nicely.
|
On September 28 2013 02:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:I don't even want to know how many millions of dollars were spent to arrive at this conclusion: The report indicates, through a comprehensive study of the different physical factors and compositions, that there is
95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause of climate change since the 1950s. Exactly what I thought, though my mind was more like, "why do we need to study what we can safely assume."
When you have people spending just as much money to say "we aren't going to do anything about this because you have no proof", then it becomes difficult to just "assume".
|
So two items out of hundreds are faulty and you try to point out problems with IPCC by citing sources that cannot be trusted at all  Especially the Fox News article is funny, its thrust based completely on "what-she-said" of activist with clear agenda. I think IPCC is more trustworthy than most organizations out there, considering how much their work is under scrutiny and how little problems were actually found out. People expecting no problems in massive collaborative effort are delusional. Plus you can also just used the peer-reviewed part of IPCC work and base your opinions on that, which is the main part of the OP anyway. Plus they were not using papers from GP and WWF as their own, I think they just used them as sources and cited them ?
|
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.
|
The problem I have is when people make the leap from saying humans cause global warming to saying we need green legislation. If you look at the data, it essentially says there is nothing humans can do to stop global co2 from increasing in the atmosphere, short of going back to the dark ages. So long as we burn fossil fuels, we will increase co2. Carbon trading and emissions caps and alternative subsidies do not change the fundamental fact that fossil fuels are still burning and will continue to burn, and therefore atmospheric co2 will continue to increase.
At the moment, it is simply impossible for modern civilization to run on green energy. There is no alternative or combination of alternatives that can meet the current demand, or even significantly less than the current demand. Most people don't look at the actual numbers involved here, they just think "we can do it." We can only do it if some truly incredible technological advance comes along, because the options we are looking at now don't come close to cutting it. In that sense R&D subsidies are probably the only legislation that makes sense or has any hope at all of changing the current reality. Then of course you have the other harsh fact that even if the US and Europe jump through all these hoops trying to get emissions reduced, it will all be offset and surpassed by the impoverished nations industrializing, primarily China.
The way I look at it, there are only two options for humanity. Return to a state of permanent global poverty and low population, or accept whatever consequences come from climate change. Obviously the first option isn't an option at all, no one wants to choose mass death and mass impoverishment. I don't know what will come of climate change, but I do know the people who are demanding we buy dixie cups to try and hold off the coming flood are delusional and dangerous.
|
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
|
On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population.
Obligatory: ignorance is bliss.
|
The people who continue to deny the role of humans in global warming, despite the ever-increasing body of evidence, completely blow my mind... I don't understand why people think they can dismiss a shitload of evidence with a few little papers which challenge small details in the data.
More importantly, I don't know what the motivations could possibly be. I understand that certain people are here to defend free market capitalism and those types of ideals, but at some point it's important to understand that short-termism is not without its limits.
I think that people from all perspective are aware that pollution is bad. Oil spills, smog, polluted air that damages our lungs over time and kills birds and various animals... Certainly, there are hippies who want to drag down capitalism and do that whole "degrowth" thing where people would live in dirt huts and whatever, but most of us just want people and enterprises to be careful. Even if there was no global warming, it's still virtuous to take the extra step and try not to pollute, when you can.
On September 28 2013 03:00 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
The problem I have is when people make the leap from saying humans cause global warming to saying we need green legislation. If you look at the data, it essentially says there is nothing humans can do to stop global co2 from increasing in the atmosphere, short of going back to the dark ages. So long as we burn fossil fuels, we will increase co2. Carbon trading and emissions caps and alternative subsidies do not change the fundamental fact that fossil fuels are still burning and will continue to burn, and therefore atmospheric co2 will continue to increase.
There are other sources of energy which can be worked toward gradually. Until we get there, there's no reason not to encourage people to try to be reasonable. I'm not saying we need to stop emitting co2 and pollution, but the efforts to slow down or stop the increase are noble and could possibly give us enough time to perhaps invent new technologies so that we don't have to suffer the consequences of our disregard of the environment since the industrialization.
Certainly there are many concerns about what happens if we hit some sort of critical mass of pollution. Perhaps we'd be better off making radical changes to our lifestyles but for now let's just try to change a few bad habits.
|
On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom. In the UK politics thread, I was advocating an idea that's even more moderate. Namely, that we should aspire toward a stable population here in the first world, and one implication of that is controls on immigration.
I was assailed by fanatics from both the left and right (although mainly from the right) who are adamant in their belief that the borders should be opened and people should be free to migrate wherever they like.
It's one of the most batshit-insane-crazy, stark raving mad, lunatical ideas that the human mind has ever devised, and it's rapidly gaining currency on the fringes of both the race-obsessed left and the corporate-crony right.
|
On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss.
You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe.
I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed.
In the UK politics thread, I was advocating an idea that's even more moderate. Namely, that we should aspire toward a stable population here in the first world, and one implication of that is controls on immigration.
I was assailed by fanatics from both the left and right (although mainly from the right) who are adamant in their belief that the borders should be opened and people should be free to emigrate wherever they like.
It's one of the most batshit-insane-crazy, stark raving mad, lunatical ideas that the human mind has ever devised, and it's rapidly gaining currency on the fringes of both the race-obsessed left and the corporate-crony right.
It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Not ideal, but we are at a stage in our civilisation where children and parenthood should be a privilege, not a right. China managed to avert their impending population cataclysm though their 1-child policy, something similar on a global scale would likely be a good idea.
|
It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective.
|
On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective.
So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then?
Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"?
Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific.
|
On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific.
I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former.
|
I agree with the Swede but the biggest argument against this is that entitlements would suffer. Would you rather live in a shack and poverty and be able to reproduce all you want or live in a mansion with nice things and not be able to? I find it interesting that you would rather have the next generation live in the former.
|
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
|
I just wanted to say you made a really nice OP.
This is very interesting, thanks for sharing.
|
On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former.
Yes, because the government would not support your excessive production of offspring you would be a slave. An incomprehensible comparison.
We have rules about what you can dump in the water because of the common good, because sensible people realise that clean water is kind of essential. I don't see how having rules about how many children you can churn out and still expect to receive support would be so much worse. We are riddled with rules about our children save for how many of them we can have, the most important part.
|
Ah, with all of these types of "Reports", let's go over the important details skipped over:
1) The Sun. Last time anyone checked, that huge ball of Nuclear Fusion isn't the most consistent producer of energy.
2) Paleoclimate record makes all of the complaints still look stupid. (More CO2 would be better for crops, actually)
3) "Confidence Intervals in Data Sets" destroy anything the want claim from them. The short answer is they can't draw anything from their data sets like they want to. This is why "statistics" is one of the best ways to lie about things.
4) Their own numbers say temperatures have been flat for 15 years, yet pollution levels haven't dropped (mostly due to China & India), which is what has killed all of their models.
And, the flip side problems of complete misalignment of priorities:
1) Humans cease to exist and the planet will still "Warm", by their own models.
2) Actual pollution *IS* an issue and it does massive damage, but that wouldn't act as penance by the First World Countries.
3) Pollution is still very much a society wealth proxy, which has a whole lot more to do with the government system & the culture than any perceived environmental issue. These are things that can never be uttered openly.
4) The Politicians would respond with personal changes if they actually believed it was an issue. (They normally fly to the conferences on "Climate Change" on government-paid private jets. Nice gig, really.)
5) Neither China nor India are stupid enough to implement the changes that it would take to make a dent in the increase in their GHG production. They don't want their entire government regimes to fall.
6) Fracking & next-gen Nuclear Reactors are still the near-term best way to limit emissions. And if someone could find a way to cut Coal-fired Power Planet emissions by 75% with a brand new design, they really could change part of the world.
In the end, it'll be as it has been since the fear mongering started in the 90s. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Well, at least some paychecks for a few people & emotional penance for others.
|
It must be frightening to live in a world in which one can assume that establishment science has ignored the sun.
|
On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. When you cut through the sentimental hyperbole, what you're really saying is that you'd rather everyone on the planet dies than we introduce a Chinese-style one-child policy.
|
It is very interesting that they now consider humans to be the dominant factor in the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
But. What does it really mean?
The earth warms and cools on its own and the environment is always changing on its own. So, what impact will our slight warming actually have? I'm interested to see what will happen if the predicted climate change occurs. I don't think much will change, other than animals relocating (which already happens).
|
On September 28 2013 04:50 Taf the Ghost wrote:
In the end, it'll be as it has been since the fear mongering started in the 90s.
Dismissing climate change as fear mongering. Entire post is invalid.
I also suggest you look at figures in China and realize that the stringent pollution laws ran thousands of manufacturing companies out of business (I would know, because my family is directly affected by these laws) who could not afford reallocation and the millions of dollars necessary to implement pollution reducing measures, and that reducing pollution in China has so little to do with whether or not the central government would maintain control of the country, but everything to do with the social and economical mentalities of the entire world regarding pollution and amassing private wealth. Many of the top polluters and violators of pollution laws are outsourced subsidiaries of western corporations who also dismiss the severity of the situation just as you are.
|
I always thought global warming was primarily do to the suns activity.. Is there an article out there that studied the temperature of other planets in our solar system? If temperatures on other planets are rising just like ours then It would make a strong case that the sun is the main contributor.
Also, I guess it would be more beneficial for us to believe that we are causing it seeing as how we feel like we can possibly reduce rising temperatures on our planet. As opposed to the sun which we have no really no control over what so ever.
|
On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed.
You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature.
Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis.
"Modern world", lol.
|
On September 27 2013 23:11 Pandemona wrote:Would prefer Humans "Attribute" to Climate Change because that what the report says xD They said it,s 95% certain Humans have "contributed" to Climate Change with Pollution etc, and that the global sea level will rise by 80cm before the end of the century. Dominant? I don't think that is the right wording Show nested quote +The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), delivered in Stockholm, warns that it is now 95% certain that global temperatures are rising and that human activity is to blame. Is how i see it, that they just contribute. They can't pin point the exact cause of climate change, but they know pollution effects it as well as Show nested quote +
The IPCC is under pressure from governments to explain why the rise in global surface temperatures has stalled over the last 15 years. Sceptics argue it is evidence computer models of the climate are wrong. But scientists counter that the planet warms in fits and starts. They point to evidence that an upwelling of cold water in the Pacific Ocean has absorbed heat from the atmosphere - but that is only temporary.
Another quote that needs addressing fast is who is right and what isn't. Show nested quote +This is unwelcome news so people want to shoot the messenger," he said.
"What people tend to do is look at some little piece of the jigsaw and say 'look this demonstrates that it's not real or it's not happening' and then they feel better because they don't have to worry about it.
"But the whole exercise that the IPCC is going through is to look at the whole picture and see the general patterns that emerge. It's the pattern in the reduction of snow and ice and increasing temperature that says there is something odd going on here." Another point that needs watching closely, the way the Earth flexes in climate has been going on for YEARS. I watched a famous documentary on it from Professor Hawking back a few years ago when he was on about the North and South Pole locations change geometrically which can help contribute to crazy weather patterns and also they predicted that this is the reason for ice ages. The only evidence they have or theory i can't remember the exact wording, is that the polar shift theory is the axis of the earth moves, and over the 200million years they predict it has moved by 55 degrees. Thus this the reason for the random weather events. But it is obviously more complex than just that, but it is also another reason you can throw into the occasion and i prefer to put my eggs into this basket as well as pollution being a problem. This discussion can go on all day and night with me as i just don't understand how we have came some 150years of using heavy polluting machines/cars etcetc and it is still getting worst and worst? Industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year or since the last record of data yet we are saying that is the reason? But what about the 100 years prior to this day why wasn't it getting worst back then? It is very interesting! Pole Shift Hypothesis
Well said.
An article covering this publication also mentioned how the downplayed the pause in Global Warming that has occurred in the last 15 years.
I don't know what it is about this subject, but I can't seem to trust any news or studies unless I can see the actual data and its source. I feel like Climate science has the highest likeliness for researchers to manipulate their data, though I don't really understand why, or why it's so politicized.
This discussion can go on all day and night with me as i just don't understand how we have came some 150years of using heavy polluting machines/cars etcetc and it is still getting worst and worst? Industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year or since the last record of data yet we are saying that is the reason? But what about the 100 years prior to this day why wasn't it getting worst back then? It is very interesting!
This is a little confusing. You ask why global warming wasn't get worse 100 years ago at the same rate it is today (although apparently global warming hasn't gotten worse since 1998 according to this study), but you answer that yourself in your previous sentence. "The whole industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year." So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication.
On September 28 2013 02:18 tertos wrote:
My opinion based on what I experience as a single individual is that the global warming is caused by agriculture and urbanization.
It is well know the fact that the heat transfer is made in 3 ways: conduction, convection and radiation.
We are interested in heat transfer by radiation since our sun is not directly or indirectly to earth.
It is also well known that the color of the surface of irradiated object has a strong influence in heat transfer due to radiation absorption/refraction. (try wearing a black versus a white shirt in the summer)
So where does that leave us?
The urbanization came with an ever increase length in roads. In the last century the surface covered by asphalt has increased exponential.
You can notice the effect quite easily by alternating moving between a medium size city and country side during summers.
.
@tertos
As interesting as that theory is, that would suggest that the change in heat would not occur at the same rate or at all in uninhabited areas... yet that's clearly not what's happening. If only urbanized areas were affected, no one would be worried about the polar ice caps melting, or ocean temperatures rising. So...
|
On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol.
You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape.
And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning?
Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon.
|
You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape.
This. Is. Awesome.
I picture an Alec Baldwin movie where he finally loses it and verbally owns the antagonist.
And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning?
While it is true that many cultures today have children to help support them (think free labor for the farm, and social security for later in life), the poor places that are relevant here are heavy populated regions, like Bangladesh or India, not rural areas, and in those places more children are most often resultant of no contraception, and each additional child places a burden on the family since they generally can't find work or provide families with useful duties to the extent needed to counterbalance their needs.
|
Well, the good news is that once this problem gets bad enough humans will just start dying off en masse, so after a few thousand years and a few billion deaths it should start to correct itself.
|
On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote:
So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming?
|
On September 28 2013 06:05 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote:
So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming?
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.
|
On September 28 2013 06:02 Sefer wrote:
This. Is. Awesome.
I picture an Alec Baldwin movie where he finally loses it and verbally owns the antagonist.
I failed to rein in my temper more than I would like. Still, the Alec Baldwin comparison is very flattering.
While it is true that many cultures today have children to help support them (think free labor for the farm, and social security for later in life), the poor places that are relevant here are heavy populated regions, like Bangladesh or India, not rural areas, and in those places more children are most often resultant of no contraception, and each additional child places a burden on the family since they generally find work or provide families with useful duties to the extent needed to counterbalance their needs.
Indeed, every new child born is one that has to be clothed, fed, housed, educated, employed etc. Lack of education and local superstitious nonsense and outdated traditions ensure that the destructive pattern continues, and we just pile more weight on the back of our already strained planet.
|
On September 28 2013 05:19 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. When you cut through the sentimental hyperbole, what you're really saying is that you'd rather everyone on the planet dies than we introduce a Chinese-style one-child policy.
On September 28 2013 04:31 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. Yes, because the government would not support your excessive production of offspring you would be a slave. An incomprehensible comparison. We have rules about what you can dump in the water because of the common good, because sensible people realise that clean water is kind of essential. I don't see how having rules about how many children you can churn out and still expect to receive support would be so much worse. We are riddled with rules about our children save for how many of them we can have, the most important part.
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.
|
I feel somewhat troubled by an action-demanding report, which can't be falsified until 'years later'. (regardless of truth)
|
On September 28 2013 06:14 Sefer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:05 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote:
So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming? 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 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.
|
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. 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.
|
On September 28 2013 06:23 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:19 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. When you cut through the sentimental hyperbole, what you're really saying is that you'd rather everyone on the planet dies than we introduce a Chinese-style one-child policy. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:31 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. Yes, because the government would not support your excessive production of offspring you would be a slave. An incomprehensible comparison. We have rules about what you can dump in the water because of the common good, because sensible people realise that clean water is kind of essential. I don't see how having rules about how many children you can churn out and still expect to receive support would be so much worse. We are riddled with rules about our children save for how many of them we can have, the most important part. 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.
|
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. 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.
|
On September 28 2013 06:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:14 Sefer wrote:On September 28 2013 06:05 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote:
So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming? 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 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. 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.
I would get annoyed as well.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
So shouldn't the title read "IPCC" instead of "IPPC"?
|
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 laughed at the 'out of free will' part. :')
|
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.
|
On September 28 2013 06:55 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
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.
|
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 coincides 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 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...
|
On September 28 2013 06:32 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Hasn't earth undergone more dramatic changes and survived? And has been undergoing changes for millions of years? I honestly never understood the real issue with Climate changes. I thought it were completely natural for the earth to drop and rise in temperatures.
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.
|
Yes, the earth has natural climate changes, but it's pretty obvious that after the industrial revolution humans have been adding a lot more pressure than mother nature would have by herself.
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.
|
On September 28 2013 07:14 Leeto wrote:
Yes, the earth has natural climate changes, but it's pretty obvious that after the industrial revolution humans have been adding a lot more pressure than mother nature would have by herself.
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.
Yep, pretty much this. In the meantime, people will use this as an excuse for yet more power grabs by the government, from further regulation of the private sector to even regulation of reproduction as some are calling for here. In the end we'll end up with both less freedom and a worse environment.
|
On September 28 2013 07:19 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:14 Leeto wrote:
Yes, the earth has natural climate changes, but it's pretty obvious that after the industrial revolution humans have been adding a lot more pressure than mother nature would have by herself.
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. Yep, pretty much this. In the meantime, people will use this as an excuse for yet more power grabs by the government, from further regulation of the private sector to even regulation of reproduction as some are calling for here. In the end we'll end up with both less freedom and a worse environment.
This tin-foil hat paranoia is as much a threat as the power grabbing governments and big corporations.
|
On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action.
The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread.
|
On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more pollution per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread.
I am in no way arguing that the refusal of the Bush administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol was disastrous, one of the low points of modern western democracy.
But still, the blame game solves nothing, it only procrastinates. Nature does not care about who did what.
|
the IPCC is a den of activist scientists who must show this to be true or else their 20 years of "work" will be shown to be nothing but a big waste of time and money
|
On September 28 2013 07:25 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more pollution per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. I am in no way arguing that the refusal of the Bush administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol was disastrous, one of the low points of modern western democracy. But still, the blame game solves nothing, it only procrastinates. Nature does not care about who did what. Well, what you seem to be saying is that the Chinese people should concede that the American people are morally inferior to them (the way the quiet guy at the back of the room turns out to be a better man than the flashy executive guy when the chips are down) and take action to reduce emissions even though they have a third the emissions per capita.
You might be right.
|
On September 28 2013 07:28 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
the IPCC is a den of activist scientists who must show this to be true or else their 20 years of "work" will be shown to be nothing but a big waste of time and money
ok. sounds reasonable. i guess they are definitely full of shit then. just disregard the thread
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 28 2013 07:30 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:25 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more pollution per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. I am in no way arguing that the refusal of the Bush administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol was disastrous, one of the low points of modern western democracy. But still, the blame game solves nothing, it only procrastinates. Nature does not care about who did what. Well, what you seem to be saying is that the Chinese people should concede that the American people are morally inferior to them and take action to reduce emissions even though they have a third the emissions per capita. You might be right.
Honestly, what are the alternatives at this point? Both of them keep pointing fingers and spewing pollution? Anything is better than nothing, someone has to take the first step.
|
hey if you are such a benevolent earth-loving steward of the planet sell your car to the junkyard and then go die so you don't breathe anymore nasty carbon into the atmosphere. And if you're not willing to do that then you and all your friends should vote for the next slick politician who proposes a nice green solution to our problems. I'm sure it will all be in the best interest of you and mother earth.
|
On September 28 2013 07:05 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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.
Refute it, you're the one with the ridiculous assertions and a lust for power. To be convinced that draconian measures are necessary I need more than the word of a wanna-be climatologist that managed to get a B on a paper of his a few years ago. And please, nothing by Al Gore. Try to resist.
There have been no claims of disaster/apocalypse by climatologists/enviromentalists, huh? Way to go, you sure are credible. You forgot to tell people not to do a basic google search on it though.
Since you didn't seem to get it, I'll reiterate. You people lack (in order) - respect for the Scientific method, common sense, restraint, humility and lastly, shame. You're the Creationists of the natural sciences. Well, you're worse.
|
On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread.
The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol)
Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter.
|
On September 28 2013 07:41 Subject011 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:05 Squat wrote: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. Refute it, you're the one with the ridiculous assertions and a lust for power. To be convinced that draconian measures are necessary I need more than the word of a wanna-be climatologist that managed to get a B on a paper of his a few years ago. And please, nothing by Al Gore. Try to resist. There have been no claims of disaster/apocalypse by climatologists/enviromentalists, huh? Way to go, you sure are credible. You forgot to tell people not to do a basic google search on it though.
You are ridiculous, you are either intentionally misinterpreting the entire report, or you simply don't understand the science involved. Just read the report, it contains everything you need to know, If you chose to disregard it because of your preconceived assumptions then that's your problem. I honestly don't really care what would convince you, since you seem so hung up on these supposed "draconian measures" I doubt it would be anything reasonable.
Good to know I have a lust for power, never knew that until now. I mean, since I've always hated being in charge and actively avoided situations where people would look to me for leadership. But it's cool that you linked all those doomsday prophecies from established experts, that sure showed me...wait. What you must be referring to are the heavily scrutinized and very well supported projections they have put forward. See, unlike the frothing deniers, they can't just make shit up and put on their tin foil hats and rant at the big bad gubberment.
|
On September 28 2013 07:41 Subject011 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:05 Squat wrote: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. Refute it, you're the one with the ridiculous assertions and a lust for power. To be convinced that draconian measures are necessary I need more than the word of a wanna-be climatologist that managed to get a B on a paper of his a few years ago. And please, nothing by Al Gore. Try to resist. It's not just two people, it's the word of the entire scientific community. That's what this thread is about: climate scientists declaring that they're 95% certain climate change is anthropogenic.
Once you've admitted that there's a good possibility they're not charlatans (and you will have to, if you're rational), then the question is raised as to what measures should be taken. The David Kim approach to the problem (a "slight nerf" here and a "slight buff" there) is not likely to make that much of a difference to carbon emissions.
|
On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter.
So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense?
|
On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense?
Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric.
|
On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen.
|
On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric.
You failed to explain why not.
|
On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric.
Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more.
Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at.
|
On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen.
What? What kind of cop out is that?
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
The average american drives ~37 miles/day.
The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.html
Then you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc.
|
On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not.
Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution.
On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at.
It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita.
Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison.
|
On September 28 2013 07:25 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more pollution per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. I am in no way arguing that the refusal of the Bush administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol was disastrous, one of the low points of modern western democracy. But still, the blame game solves nothing, it only procrastinates. Nature does not care about who did what.
And history mistake there. The US Senate voted a sense of the Senate on the Kyoto Protocol and it came up 95-0 that the Senate would not sign Kyoto. This was during 1997, so the Clinton Administration. Which doesn't cover the fact it was never going to pass here.
As to going back to the topic itself, enforced actions simply won't do much of anything. The only countries that'll sign on to accords are ones that think they gain something from it. Even with Kyoto, the Europeans were mostly gaming the numbers in the first place (there's a reason 1990 was set as a baseline, after all), so it meant little to them. This is the nature of International Politics.
If you want to see things change, you better be bringing online very good & industrial scale technology. And not just through massive subsidization. The only way countries, as a whole, will "buy in" is if something serves their needs & interests. So, get cracking on those Fusion Reactor designs! (Fracking & next-gen Nuclear Reactors are the way to go, for the time being. That's simply reality.)
|
On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher?
Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country.
On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. Waaah, poor Americans aren't constrained by factors such as pollution. Waaah. Boo hoo for them, poor dears.
|
On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison.
What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison?
|
On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country.
Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car.
Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html
"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis."
|
On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison?
I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont.
If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens?
Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense?
|
On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions?
This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family, father, mother, daughter and son, all have cars of their own and that's why their carbon emissions are so high?
As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes.
|
On September 28 2013 07:08 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Hasn't earth undergone more dramatic changes and survived? And has been undergoing changes for millions of years? I honestly never understood the real issue with Climate changes. I thought it were completely natural for the earth to drop and rise in temperatures.
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. Yeah, drastic changes and stuff. And billions of species went extinct, you forgot to mention that.
This isn't about saving the Earth or saving life because the Earth will keep on turning and life will keep on adapting just like it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. This isn't even about saving humans because we will continue to adapt and exist as well. What this is about is saving your god damn pretty life within our wonderful civilization.
|
On September 28 2013 08:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison? I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont. If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens? Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense?
I think you're missing the context here of using per capita comparisons. The point is not to look at right now, but to look forwards to changes in pollution per capita related to economic development.
Lemme use your example: if you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. Country B is growing, but if more than 100 people in both countries combined have cars, global warming occurs. What happens? Do you blame Country B for growing? Do you accept the inevitability of global warming? Do you attempt to negotiate a deal to avoid said problem? In such a deal, looking at the long run in which the people of country B will be able to afford cars, is it fair for an agreement to give the people of Country A a greater right to have cars than the people of country B?
|
On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes.
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions.
Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
Regardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made.
28% of american emissions are from transportation
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
China has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars.
QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison.
|
On September 28 2013 08:30 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:08 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Hasn't earth undergone more dramatic changes and survived? And has been undergoing changes for millions of years? I honestly never understood the real issue with Climate changes. I thought it were completely natural for the earth to drop and rise in temperatures.
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. Yeah, drastic changes and stuff. And billions of species went extinct, you forgot to mention that. This isn't about saving the Earth or saving life because the Earth will keep on turning and life will keep on adapting just like it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. This isn't even about saving humans because we will continue to adapt and exist as well. What this is about is saving your god damn pretty life within our wonderful civilization.
It might be about having your great grand children, which you're likely to never have, having a less wet environment. None of this stuff is near term, as the climate has far too many cyclical events for them to be impacted by any measurable amount for a very long time.
This is also why few people actually care past platitudes. It's never really going to effect you. Ah, the joys of externalities.
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison? I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont. If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens? Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense? I think you're missing the context here of using per capita comparisons. The point is not to look at right now, but to look forwards to changes in pollution per capita related to economic development. Lemme use your example: if you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. Country B is growing, but if more than 100 people in both countries combined have cars, global warming occurs. What happens? Do you blame Country B for growing? Do you accept the inevitability of global warming? Do you attempt to negotiate a deal to avoid said problem? In such a deal, looking at the long run in which the people of country B will be able to afford cars, is it fair for an agreement to give the people of Country A a greater right to have cars than the people of country B?
I have not mentioned rights in this at all. I am not saying whether it is fair for one country to have one thing while another cant. I am PURELY SAYING that comparing carbon emissions on a PER CAPITA basis from an already developed nation with one that is still developing (especially when 28% of ALL emissions from one of them is from transportation).
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy.
But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself".
|
On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself".
Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person.
Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse.
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote: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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison.
So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita.
|
On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
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. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita.
It is an imbalanced comparison.
EDIT: It is like comparing any country to India's per capita. Their population is so high it waters down the comparison in favor of India
|
On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action.
The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison.
Because the US pollutes more per capita? That's not an "imbalanced comparsion", that's the result of the comparison itself. "But China would pollute more if they could!", great but let's talk about the here and now.
|
On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action.
The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison.
I'll try and explain it like this:
You have a chinese living in a village with a minimum of luxury, emitting 10 pollution.
Then there is an westerner living in a suburb and emitting 100 pollution.
Now because the westerner can afford a car and the chinese can't, the fair way to reduce the global pollution according to you (or you posts so far at least) is to make them both stay at 10 and 100 pollution respectively.
I'd think that a more appropriate way to reduce emission would be to force the westerner to find a way to reduce his pollution (which would benefit the chinese as well when/if he gets to the same level of luxury), while making less harsh demand of the chinese (it's hard to limit pollution when you are struggling to even make a living)
edit: what you are saying is basicly: "we got rich first but accidentally the planet. Now you can't be rich as well because then pollution"
|
On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity.
We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. American living standards are just stupendously higher than those of the Chinese at the moment.
None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions.
|
This thread is so depressing lol. I don't know if it can be seen as a microcosm for humanity at large, but I'm guessing that it probably can be and that most people don't believe the science because of their own intuitive belief supported by their youtube-video-watching education, or they just don't care because they won't live long enough to see the effects.
I wonder if we'll see any serious effects 50 years from now? What butterfly effects could 2 degrees of warming have? It was mentioned earlier on in the thread that there could be specie extinctions, and if they happen to be crucial then the effects will clearly be significant. But the threat was never elaborated on so I'm not sure what to make of the possibility. Besides that there's the potential for massive drought, but from this report the magnitude is very uncertain.
Our only real saviour now is technology. We have had great developments in the area of computer processing power and miniaturization over the past few decades. Who knows what advanced information processing capabilities will give us? Maybe we will design a neural network and create "thought" machines that can craft a solution?
It seems like the only major issue might be the next 50-100 years. If we can survive that and keep advancing at the rate we're going...assuming that the difference between the 2000s and the 1900s is an indicator of the differences to come between now and 2100, after we survive long enough global warming probably won't matter as we can just alter the climate ourselves back to a stable temperature.
Or just live in arcologies  .
|
On September 28 2013 09:04 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison. edit: what you are saying is basicly: "we got rich first but accidentally the planet. Now you can't be rich as well because then pollution"
No. I am not saying this at all. I am saying it is not a proper comparison because the two countries are different. I am not talking about future, I am not talking about changes, I am not saying what one can or can not do. I am saying it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Compare apples to apples. Find a similar scenario. Compare the emissions of California with Spain (roughly equivalent sizes/population)
|
On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions.
Only downtowns were planned before cars.
http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm
|
The people and businesses in richer countries are better placed to make sacrifices than people in China, it's pretty obvious. I don't know why people are discussing this thing like emerging powers need to be the ones taking one for the team. We are.
|
On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work.
America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars.
|
On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars.
Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work.
Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another.
|
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization.
|
One thing people are missing is that gas prices are much higher in Europe than in the US. It's simple economics that as the price for a commodity increases, demand for alternatives goes up. This goes a long way in explaining Europe's much better public transportation system and lower carbon emissions.
|
On September 28 2013 09:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization.
Very well said!
|
On September 28 2013 09:38 Cheren wrote:
One thing people are missing is that gas prices are much higher in Europe than in the US. It's simple economics that as the price for a commodity increases, demand for alternatives goes up. This goes a long way in explaining Europe's much better public transportation system and lower carbon emissions.
Even then, it is more complicated. If US gas prices hit EU gas price levels things would be disastrous. It is cheaper to live farther from the city, so a lot of poor people live far from where they work. Higher prices = can't get to work = unemployment. If prices rise and you somehow subsidize huge amounts of public transportation so they can keep their jobs, taxes have to go up. Which could mean more issues again.
|
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
|
On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
Well, I thought they already said this like 10 years ago.
|
On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
|
A group of experts spend lots of money researching something then give the results. People react by saying, "you don't know what you're talking about. What I feel is right because I did no research and have no expertise in this field. That makes me right and you, who spent 6+ years focusing on this and scientific data related to this field of study, are wrong."
Why are scientists treated this way... It really hurts to see things like this when I am progressing into the field of medical research. 
I'm glad there is now definitive proof other than the simple UV B and C light interaction with Ozone and O2 and other substance's interaction with Ozone. Hopefully things progress towards scientists focusing on how to create more ozone to balance out what is lost via pollution.
|
On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate?
Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion?
|
On September 28 2013 09:39 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization. Very well said!
Doesn't matter what the actual difficulty of fixing this is. The idea is to understand that humans are causing the issue. Whether we can fix the issue or not will be up to some genius invention. Overall average humans can't do anything to fix it. Why say "Humans are causing the issue," then? So some non-average human can figure out what the main issue is and work towards an inventive solution.
At this rate it probably won't be a "get people to stop using oil." invention but a "get something in the air to reverse or slow down the progression" type invention.
Another way of saying what was said. When humans started to figure out that moving away from people/friends made it near impossible to communicate with them they didn't say, "Oh we should just stay near everyone we know and don't worry about figuring out what's going on in the world." They instead said, "we should come up with a way to still communicate." And that is how mail came about (yea not super effective but stay with me.) Overtime they started using some scientific inventions and understandings to create the telegraph, (had to learn morse code or find someone to read it for you so that sucked.) Then more time passed and the phone was created (basic in the start but became what we now know as the cell phone. A very useful piece of technology.)
|
Our only real saviour now is technology.
What? No, a lot can be accomplished by simply not wasting so much shit on a daily basis.
|
On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc.
In regards to Australia:
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/08/are-you-driving-more-than-the-average/
"which works out at around 38 kilometres a day" or about 23 miles (which is comparable to the same amount that is driven in the UK).
It is readily apparent that you are extremely biased against the US regardless of what the actual real situation is. You have no clue how US cities are organized, you make baseless claims, you use biased metrics, and you use dramatic phrases like shedding tears when they are not even necessary OR relevant to what we are talking about.
|
On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles.
One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn.
Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land .
Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern.
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me.
|
On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me.
That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems.
Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea.
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern.
I already highlighted urban sprawl as a problem earlier in the thread.
And yes, we do use a ton of oil. This is largely because we rely on it for power. I would be ecstatic if we could utilize more wind and nuclear power. Even moreso if Bill Gates project comes to fruition.
On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy.
But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea.
You act like we arent doing anything to combat urban sprawl... meanwhile we are. Again, refer to previously linked article.
|
On September 28 2013 11:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. I already highlighted urban sprawl as a problem earlier in the thread. And yes, we do use a ton of oil. This is largely because we rely on it for power. I would be ecstatic if we could utilize more wind and nuclear power. Even moreso if Bill Gates project comes to fruition. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person.
Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea. You act like we arent doing anything to combat urban sprawl... meanwhile we are. Again, refer to previously linked article.
And I was just giving a sarcastic remark to the guy who responded to my post. I wrote that without any actual regard as to what is currently being done today to solve urban sprawl as an issue.
|
On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy.
But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea. The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Magically transforming American society and culture in that respect would have only the slightest modifier effect on the rate of C02 growth. It would in fact accomplish nothing, except discourage a culture of individuality and family. Your reliance on planners is about six decades intellectually outmoded im afraid.
As to the happiness issue: South Korea isnt America [thank god], nor is France Britain, or Germany italy. We have different cultural expectations, and different preferences. I cant stand cities and would be completely miserable within them, doubly so within the context of European culture; which is by order of magnitudes less family oriented, less religious, less individualistic, and less free. As I said, if you want a city like that, go to one that creates it organically and not through government (see: violence) machinates.
|
Science confirms the obvious...
Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions.
If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals.
|
On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant.
On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals.
Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account....
|
On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account....
Is theGuardian reliable? I heard this fact on QI which is pretty good at fact research.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
I'm not saying cars are not a a big impact but flights do generate a huge amount of emissions unrealized by the general public since a plane seems like "carpooling in the sky"
|
On September 28 2013 10:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC? Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate? Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion?
It has a history. It's not some bright-eyed dispassionate scientists sitting down to investigate. They came under heavy criticism for letting climate change activists work alongside the scientists and represent that panel's findings.
STEWART FRANKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNI. OF TASMANIA (On Q&A): The IPCC, since 1990, has been arguably the sole voice for climate and yet there are thousands of dissenting scientists.
HAYDEN COOPER: Professor Stewart Franks is a reviewer for the latest report and think it's time for a change from the consensus approach.
STEWART FRANKS: By creating this elite body, you polarise the sight of a community. If you criticise it or if you disagree with aspects of its statements, then you're going against the IPCC. You know, when science is actually about diversity of opinions and then testing those opinions, those hypotheses with evidence and with data, and I think the consensus approach of the IPCC is actually very artificial.
HAYDEN COOPER: The credibility of the organisation has been challenged during the past decade. London-based author and journalist Fred Pearce covered what became known as "Climategate", the leaking of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, which raised questions about honesty behind the scenes.
FRED PEARCE, ENVIRONMENT WRITER: Some of the climate scientists were cutting corners, were being rather bitchy with each other and especially bitchy with some of their critics, and sort of - it wasn't the sign of a great conspiracy, but it did undermine confidence that scientists are kind of dispassionate viewers of the data.
DAVID KAROLY: They do not indicate a conspiracy or in any way shake the foundations of the IPCC. However, the media misreporting of Climategate has probably led to some people wondering about, if you like, the strength of the IPCC and has probably led to some people losing faith in the IPCC as well. source
Some of the criticism of Chairman Pachauri
The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years. source
I accept the releases from the scientific journals, and many of them have laid various temperate changes of oceans and the rest on the anthropogenic CO2. IPCC has been responsible for wild predictions on what was going to happen this century and hype leading to the EU/US global regulation of climate change at the Copenhagen conference.
|
On September 28 2013 12:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC? Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate? Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion? It has a history. It's not some bright-eyed dispassionate scientists sitting down to investigate. They came under heavy criticism for letting climate change activists work alongside the scientists and represent that panel's findings. Show nested quote +STEWART FRANKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNI. OF TASMANIA (On Q&A): The IPCC, since 1990, has been arguably the sole voice for climate and yet there are thousands of dissenting scientists.
HAYDEN COOPER: Professor Stewart Franks is a reviewer for the latest report and think it's time for a change from the consensus approach.
STEWART FRANKS: By creating this elite body, you polarise the sight of a community. If you criticise it or if you disagree with aspects of its statements, then you're going against the IPCC. You know, when science is actually about diversity of opinions and then testing those opinions, those hypotheses with evidence and with data, and I think the consensus approach of the IPCC is actually very artificial.
HAYDEN COOPER: The credibility of the organisation has been challenged during the past decade. London-based author and journalist Fred Pearce covered what became known as "Climategate", the leaking of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, which raised questions about honesty behind the scenes.
FRED PEARCE, ENVIRONMENT WRITER: Some of the climate scientists were cutting corners, were being rather bitchy with each other and especially bitchy with some of their critics, and sort of - it wasn't the sign of a great conspiracy, but it did undermine confidence that scientists are kind of dispassionate viewers of the data.
DAVID KAROLY: They do not indicate a conspiracy or in any way shake the foundations of the IPCC. However, the media misreporting of Climategate has probably led to some people wondering about, if you like, the strength of the IPCC and has probably led to some people losing faith in the IPCC as well. sourceSome of the criticism of Chairman Pachauri Show nested quote +The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years. sourceI accept the releases from the scientific journals, and many of them have laid various temperate changes of oceans and the rest on the anthropogenic CO2. IPCC has been responsible for wild predictions on what was going to happen this century and hype leading to the EU/US global regulation of climate change at the Copenhagen conference.
First source just had a bunch of guys give their opinions. Means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Second source... well... it has a bias. In the related articles in climate change, I found such gems as "The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end" and "Ignore the doom merchants, Britain should get fracking." On a similar note, this article really only talks about how the IPCC overestimated the melting of Himalayan glaciers by a long shot (one mistake in a three thousand page report), covers how people want Pachauri to step down primarily for PR's sake, then finishes the article with a pathetic ad hominem attack about how Pachauri had written unspecified "steamy novels" in the past.
I'll do some more research on the guy, but these two sources you've sent me are... suboptimal.
|
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
|
On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
I can't imagine that's true. Anyway, Capitalism is all about growth, so even if we could throttle our emissions, it would impair our growth in a very significant way, which would in all likelyhood be significant enough to screw with the economic system enough to have some serious negative effects, especially if we aimed to have no measurable efffects on the temperature.
|
On September 28 2013 12:22 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account.... Is theGuardian reliable? I heard this fact on QI which is pretty good at fact research. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissionsI'm not saying cars are not a a big impact but flights do generate a huge amount of emissions unrealized by the general public since a plane seems like "carpooling in the sky"
You bring up an interesting point, that natural disasters could be worse than artificial emissions and that airplane emissions may be more than cars. However, you have to consider the scale of CO2 emission. I did a bit of research on this, using predominantly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as my source.
As a preface, based on the website you linked (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions), the amount of emissions not released by planes was 2.8 million metric tonnes of CO2 during the duration of the volcano event. Simultaneously, the volcano was emitting approximately 150,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per day. At this rate, it would only take 18.67 days or eruptions for the volcano to spew out more CO2 than it saved by grounding those planes. According to the website, volcanoes also account for about 200 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Those number may seem massive, but based on studies conducted by the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html), the amount of artificial emissions released during 2011 in the USA alone was 6,702 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This means that volcanoes are equivalent to about 3 percent of what we use in human usage in the USA alone. Another way to look at that is that volcano would have to erupt for 122.3 years straight to match USA's output in a single year.
Getting back on topic and on to airplanes, based on another EPA study, as found in this Department of Transportation (DoT) article (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html), in 2006, transportation of all kinds accounted for 28 percent of the emissions. Further, of that 28 percent, 63 percent resulted from light vehicles, whereas only 9 percent was caused by airplanes.
Combining the 2006 percentages and the 2011 maxes, air planes emitted a total of 168.9 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2011 or 2.5 percent of total artificial emissions in the USA. Given that volcanoes release 200 million metric tonnes per year, I can safely say that air planes in the USA alone account for less emissions than all the volcanoes on Earth.
Cars, however, is another matter. Using the same data presented in the two studies, light vehicles emit a total of 1182 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent in the year 2011 or 17.6 percent of all artificial emissions in the USA. This may not be a majority or a overwhelming chunk - that is apparently reserved for another overly abused American commodity known as electricity production - but it is still substantial.
EDIT: I just read some final parts on that study regarding the break down of transportation. Apparently the study doesn't include international flights or shipping. Additionally, because emissions are released into the upper atmosphere, it has different effects than automobiles. I will have to look into this more after I get some more sleep.
EDIT 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html
This article goes into comparisons between flying and driving. Flying is considerably worse. The only reason I can see cars having a greater impact than airplanes is due to number of cars travelling vs. number of planes travelling.
Regarding Dazed_Spy's comments:
As I cannot ascertain your sources, I cannot validity your claims. Likewise, as I do not know how you judge significance, both objectively and subjectively, even with sufficient data, I still could not assert whether your statements are valid. I can, however, still strongly reject your statement regarding the significance on the basis of my quick research and my objective consideration that 17.6 percent is a large portion that can be reduced.
Regarding happiness and discarding my academic pseudo-babble, I don't think happiness plays a factor at all. When it comes to these things, only one thing matters; money. If prices or taxes hike up as a result of lack of resources or artificially through the EPA or other central government power, companies will have to increase their prices. As prices increase, affordability goes down. If this occurs over a long enough period of time, people will have to start living differently to accommodate the change in pricing.
I don't know what you have against Korea and I don't care if you think Europe's stabbing the heart of the traditionally smallest social cell, practicing satanism (or atheism), forcing dependence upon big government or other neutering characteristics of leaning on big brother, or enslaving its population, they have a system that generates less emissions. If we need or wish to plan for a system that reduces our oil/energy consumption or our emissions, your individual happiness and inconvenience is the last thing that matters. Your individual wants and preconceived and immutable expectations for personal happiness should not force the country to follow a practice that is potentially unsustainable or endangering to future generations of humans.
|
On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account.... Someone else can find the total calculated amount of emissions relative to each particular country, I'll just give you a breakdown of the rates [cant find a total calculated source]
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/its-official-western-europeans-have-more-cars-per-person-than-americans/261108/
Thats the ownership rate of cars in just some selected countries, more complete database: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.NVEH.P3
Heres a source saying its 15% of total emissions: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8468
And heres a source showing some data on avg distance travelled with a car, for what thats worth http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/end-car-ownership-developed-world-least/3452/
Obviously theres something of a gap of data here, namely the efficiency of cars and how long each of these cars are actually just stalled in urban congestion instead of moving. Hell, most reports ive seen show urban congestion to be bad for the environment due to that very reason. 15% is relatively insignificant especially when you breakdown Americas percentage of total car ownership, and whatever impact centralizing population in cities and [massive, incredibly expensive, and ultimately incompetent] building "public" transit will have, is minor in the world. Were talking about reducing global c02 emissions by a fraction of a percent, all in the context of wildly transforming the landscape of a continental sized country. And at that, it would fail-- precisely because America is continental sized.
It's not just a matter of people living in the suburbs, but a matter of transporting goods from place to place. A hell of a lot of the actual c02 emitted from motor vehicles is transportation, and America cant suddenly shrink its country into a small pocket like France, nor can we even build trains in a lot of areas due to mountains, deserts, forests, lakes, indian reservations and so on and so on. It aint going to happen, it would have almost exactly no impact on global warming if it did-- though the push to do so would rape our pocket book and enrich corrupt politicians and their friends, surely.
This is the 'useless' social mobilization for global warming initiatives I talked about. Were better off simply going about our business and waiting for technology to improve fuel economy, THAT will lower the contribution in a more meaningful way.
edit: Especially a useless activity given car ownership and use rates are falling in the western world but exploding in China, precisely the part of the world that uses less efficient cars. Yes yes, lets radically transform society and pump billions of dollars into central urban planning to make a completely meaningless impact on a part of our lives that are already naturally transforming from market pressure and technological innovation! Gotta love Greenies, no brains but a lot of thirst for power.
|
|
|
On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US.
The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring).
I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
|
On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
Tell me, what have you done to cut carbon emissions?
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. I'm sure you'd adapt quickly enough. Car-sharing, bicycles, trains, trams...it's hardly an insoluble problem as a certain self-centred individual in this thread is trying to argue. Maybe the convenience lifestyle might be slightly impacted for a while, but I'm not sure that's going to sit well with the suburban Chinese, many of whom don't even have access to electricity.
|
On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. Thank you for putting the issue quite plainly.
Now everyone can see what the real point is here, and what these apologists for American exceptionalism on the environment really mean between the lines.
They'd rather continue to pollute the planet than alter their lifestyle of convenience and live in a "huddled town" like most of the rest of the world.
|
On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion.
EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that.
|
On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's an easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live.
It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
|
On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.)
As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment.
|
On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment.
So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here"
They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money.
Here is some food for thought:
The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
It cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land
A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.html
Another 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253
Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there!
It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK.
It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane).
EDIT: Also, I am done responding to your weak troll posts. If you want to discuss something, bring facts and evidence to the table outside of comparing one country to another.
|
On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane).
Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway.
The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still.
|
On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still.
Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise.
|
On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise.
This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
|
On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them?
Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft.
Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books.
|
On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books.
Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap?
EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say.
|
On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? But that's the point. Why does it have to be cheap? Can't you get your head around the fact that everyone -- Americans included -- has to make large and significant sacrifices?
|
On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice.
the next ice time is in around what 100k years, if we make it hot like we do it now its 200k years and if we make every year more in same speed as now it will ... never come ...
well i dont like ice time so hell yeah where is my hammer
|
On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise. This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
Eh, it's actually not that hard: it would take thousands of years to actually run out of Uranium, even without reprocessing. Even at an extremely sold rate of growth. Plus, we can leech Uranium out of the ocean for a few millennium. (Though you would need some on-demand abilities, but hopefully industrial scale battery technology exists in 50-70 years)
The issue is that it's Nuclear and Nuclear power only works with stable governments. Thus the problem. So, Fusion is your answer for the Grid systems. (There are spot places for Solar & Geo-thermal; Wind is mostly useless except at killing endangered bird species) However, Fusion is a monster Engineering problem and has been for the past 50 years. There's no easy answers, though a massive amount of options available.
Though Fusion isn't without some risks. If you managed to ignite the atmosphere, at least there'd be no lawyers left to sue anyone. Or anyone else for that matter when the Earth is suddenly covered in a ball of plasma. But if Humanity goes out in a massive ball of burning Atmosphere, eh, that's not a bad way to go. At least it's artistically pleasing at the end.
|
On September 28 2013 18:31 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? But that's the point. Why does it have to be cheap? Can't you get your head around the fact that everyone -- Americans included -- has to make large and significant sacrifices?
It has to be cheap because he said it was cheap. I am questioning the validity of his idea that there are in fact cheap and quick geo-engineering solutions that can be implemented. Stop your useless tirade against the US already. I am about ready to just completely ignore you from here on out.
|
On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:
This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
woah lets not go that far
|
On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's an easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
Nothing better to do? What many people don't realize is that for large parts of humanity the status quo is already catastrophic. You don't need global warming to have millions of people die to Malaria, millions of people starving, millions of people die to AIDS, to have millions of people without access to education or even clean drinking water.
According to current projections the population of Africa will rise from ca. 1 billion today to 2.3 billion in 2050, but the standard of living in Africa has hardly any chance to rise. A catastrophe right there!
So yeah, global warming is a problem, but only one among many our civilization faces.
|
On September 28 2013 18:34 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise. This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS. Eh, it's actually not that hard: it would take thousands of years to actually run out of Uranium, even without reprocessing. Even at an extremely sold rate of growth. Plus, we can leech Uranium out of the ocean for a few millennium. (Though you would need some on-demand abilities, but hopefully industrial scale battery technology exists in 50-70 years) The issue is that it's Nuclear and Nuclear power only works with stable governments. Thus the problem. So, Fusion is your answer for the Grid systems. (There are spot places for Solar & Geo-thermal; Wind is mostly useless except at killing endangered bird species) However, Fusion is a monster Engineering problem and has been for the past 50 years. There's no easy answers, though a massive amount of options available. Though Fusion isn't without some risks. If you managed to ignite the atmosphere, at least there'd be no lawyers left to sue anyone. Or anyone else for that matter when the Earth is suddenly covered in a ball of plasma. But if Humanity goes out in a massive ball of burning Atmosphere, eh, that's not a bad way to go. At least it's artistically pleasing at the end.
Well yes, that was kind of what I meant, I don't consider nuclear power more than a bandaid, and a volatile one at that. It's better than coal and oil for sure, but that's about it. Fusion is our best bet, and it's pricy. As in really, REALLY pricy. But then again, money is sort of useless if there is nothing left to eat anyway.
And heck, going out in a giant ball of plasma sounds nearly as awesome as surfing down a volcano, on a shark.
Edit: And please stop bickering about what country did what and about who called who a poopypants. It actually does not matter nearly as much as you'd think.
Nothing better to do? What many people don't realize is that for large parts of humanity the status quo is already catastrophic. You don't need global warming to have millions of people die to Malaria, millions of people starving, millions of people die to AIDS, to have millions of people without access to education or even clean drinking water.
According to current projections the population of Africa will rise from ca. 1 billion today to 2.3 billion in 2050, but the standard of living in Africa has hardly any chance to rise. A catastrophe right there!
So yeah, global warming is a problem, but only one among many our civilization faces.
Which was the point I was trying to make about catastrophic population growth, and the need to curb it, I am perfectly aware of this. Apparently that makes me worse than Mecha-Hitler and Jerry Falwell combined.
|
On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say.
I'm about to zonk, so forgive me for not spending a while to track down sources, but a few off the top of my head:
- Iron seeding the plankton plums (probably find information about it in the Ocean Acidity research; which is more of a problem than people like to talk about)
- Cloud seeding (from the Cosmic Ray/Cloud cycle research)
- There have been a few proposals for a Sun Deflector at different levels of Orbit (though mostly beyond-Moon Orbits)
- From the Albedo research, there was a pretty good proposal that all we needed to do was mandate that all new roofs be White. (Would require a bit more government interference & take a little longer, but only in the range of 30ish years)
I also remember there being an interesting proposal for "spraying" something interesting in the middle of the atmosphere to change the Albedo as well, but I can't remember what it was. (Or maybe that was about Chinese pollution possibly causing the "temperature pause"; there's so much of this stuff)
A quick & kind of important detail about all of this: the atmosphere mostly reflects energy, not keep it in. So the actual needed adjustment on the totality would be quite small, assuming the Climate Models are even in the ballpark. And the ideas generally given for Geo-Engineering would cost some money. So, a few billion. That's not a lot when considering spending Trillions (or just doing the economies that much damage) is likely to actually just raise total emissions as efficiencies are lost.
I guess I'll close by, again, pointing out that the IPCC has mostly been fear mongering since the 90s. There are problems with pollution, they need to be addressed, but ginning up fear about what might happen 100 years hence has always just encouraged everyone to ignore the practical for the over-the-top & power-grabbing options. The "Chicken Little" routine doesn't work when you've had sustained attacks on your data sets & your own models have been mostly worthless in tracking your own data.
There are serious problems in need of serious solutions that require all of the stakeholders involved in those problems to be involved. But that doesn't serve anyone drastically effected by the problems we have now.
|
On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try.
You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States.
The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost).
There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high.
But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out.
We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture.
|
Hi rabiddeer, taf,
On September 28 2013 18:58 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap?
EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say. I'm about to zonk, so forgive me for not spending a while to track down sources, but a few off the top of my head: - Iron seeding the plankton plums (probably find information about it in the Ocean Acidity research; which is more of a problem than people like to talk about) - Cloud seeding (from the Cosmic Ray/Cloud cycle research) - There have been a few proposals for a Sun Deflector at different levels of Orbit (though mostly beyond-Moon Orbits) - From the Albedo research, there was a pretty good proposal that all we needed to do was mandate that all new roofs be White. (Would require a bit more government interference & take a little longer, but only in the range of 30ish years) I also remember there being an interesting proposal for "spraying" something interesting in the middle of the atmosphere to change the Albedo as well, but I can't remember what it was. (Or maybe that was about Chinese pollution possibly causing the "temperature pause"; there's so much of this stuff) A quick & kind of important detail about all of this: the atmosphere mostly reflects energy, not keep it in. So the actual needed adjustment on the totality would be quite small, assuming the Climate Models are even in the ballpark. And the ideas generally given for Geo-Engineering would cost some money. So, a few billion. That's not a lot when considering spending Trillions (or just doing the economies that much damage) is likely to actually just raise total emissions as efficiencies are lost. I guess I'll close by, again, pointing out that the IPCC has mostly been fear mongering since the 90s. There are problems with pollution, they need to be addressed, but ginning up fear about what might happen 100 years hence has always just encouraged everyone to ignore the practical for the over-the-top & power-grabbing options. The "Chicken Little" routine doesn't work when you've had sustained attacks on your data sets & your own models have been mostly worthless in tracking your own data. There are serious problems in need of serious solutions that require all of the stakeholders involved in those problems to be involved. But that doesn't serve anyone drastically effected by the problems we have now.
just to hop in (you might still know me from the TL vs climate change thread here in the same forum http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083 ), so just take my "credentials" from there
there is one technique that will be implemented soon, that is carbon sequestration and storage, CSS, i.e., to recapture carbon and store it under the Earth. It is unclear right now how efficient this will be.
There is essentially only ONE active technique that is robust and comparably cheap to do something against CO2 once it is in the atmosphere, that is the sulfur cloud seeding. Essentially we would simulate big volcanic eruptions by putting Sulfur in the stratosphere. The resulting cooling is fast, and also fastlived. People discuss it all over the place, because it is cheap and easy enough that SINGLE countries could in theory do it right now.
PRoblematic are
- we know that even if you can cool Earth down again on average, Earths climate will be changed anyway (an EArth with more CO2 and more Sulfur clouds != todays earth wrt precipitation). We dont know how these changes will be distributed and as precipitation is one of the most relevant climatic variables, this could very well be reason for international problems on large scales.
- it would have to be continous for ever (similar to nuclear waste things). if we for any reason stop doing the sulfur seeding for a year or two at any point in the next hundreds to thousands of years, there would be a massive increase in temperature.
- our cloud models are still pretty crap. people dont believe them when applied to climate change but believe them when they say that the resulting clouds would MOSTLY cool. I am working with these models and I would argue that is still quite uncertain.
- there is no law or governance institution that can handle global geoengineering at the moment. It is something that has to be discussed, though.
and just as an addendum: the IPCC as I perceive it has never been "scaremongering". It has been pictures as thus in the media due to a variety of reasons, but the IPCC scientists I know are hardworking and careful guys who would not get into the scaremongering business at all, but err at the side of caution.
Best regards, I hope that shows the geoengineering problems and potentials a little bit. I am a huge supporter of Geo engineering research, but I fear we dont know yet enough to say it can be part of the solution
W
|
On September 28 2013 19:17 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try. You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States. The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost). There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high. But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out. We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture.
I mentioned Seattle because that is one that I personally experienced having lived in the area while it was being constructed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Construction_and_operation_costs
In regards to rail distances:
There is already 233k miles of railway in the US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_of_railroad_track_in_US
100k miles of light rail may very well not be enough. There are 3.9 million miles of road in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Road_transportation
The road network in the UK is 50k miles (and train network of 10k miles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_United_Kingdom
3.9 million vs 50k. That is just SLIGHTLY more than your estimate of 10x distance.
|
On September 28 2013 20:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 19:17 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try. You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States. The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost). There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high. But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out. We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture. I mentioned Seattle because that is one that I personally experienced having lived in the area while it was being constructed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Construction_and_operation_costsIn regards to rail distances: There is already 233k miles of railway in the US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_of_railroad_track_in_US100k miles of light rail may very well not be enough. There are 3.9 million miles of road in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Road_transportationThe road network in the UK is 50k miles (and train network of 10k miles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_United_Kingdom3.9 million vs 50k. That is just SLIGHTLY more than your estimate of 10x distance. Hard to know what to say when faced with such a dishonest arguer.
First you mention specifically the problem of commuting in suburban neighbourhoods. I suggest increasing quantity of rails by 50% as a solution to the problem...now you're on about a completely UNRELATED problem, which is covering the entire US in rails. You pull out of your ass some random assumption that existing rail services are thoroughly inadequate, even though you can easily find that 90% of the US population can be accessed through passenger rail.
Then you strike a false equivalence between miles of rails and miles of roads...as if the two need to be even remotely comparable for commuting by train to be an option. Breaking news: they don't.
Then you compare the quantity of main roads in the UK with the total quantity of all roads in the US and arrive at a ridiculous figure which should have been implausible on its face. Road network of the US is actually about 16 times as long. My figure of 10 times the size of rail network of the UK required as an addition to the current US network was quite reasonable and quite generous to your side of the debate.
And once again, you completely sidestep and ignore the point about alternative solutions to the problem.
|
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
|
On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
The problem in a nut shell, basically.
|
A fraction of a degree is the average. What it means is that the summers get warmer by several degrees, the winters get colder by several degrees, and the net change is a fraction of a degree.
A warmer summer means flora and fauna change - tropical conditions spread (and not just tropical, but desert conditions too) during summer months. Things like mosquitos start to pop up in regions where they normally don't show up - and they show up earlier in regions that they do normally visit. Glacial ice melt at a higher rate during the summers, and they do not recover during the winters. Just a fraction of a degree may be all you see on paper, but the global ecosystem doesn't just see a degree - it sees a direction of movement.
Climate models as described by climate scientists aren't meant to "help us" with anything. They are meant to be interpreted. Unfortunately there's people out there who interpret these models to both extremes - "the world is going to end" and "this is bullshit". How can they "give you a model for a good summer in 10 years" if they have no control over their variables? Next, you are going to tell physicists to give you a model that allows you to disregard gravity? These scientists observe the current status and provide data showing the trends and the expected results - that's what they do.
As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems. There is no sudden fix, and people should not be adverse to energy efficient solutions. And yes - a lot of the energy efficient solutions right now have their own downsides. Should we just ditch those solutions, or should we perhaps try to make them better? I'm the type of person that thinks - you know what, let's try to make the solution better, instead of dropping it completely.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
The problem is not that the world will be a fraction of a degree warmer, the problem is that over a long period of time the increased temperature will, according to physics models, cause the release of even more carbon emissions (from naturally captured carbon) pushing the greenhouse effect beyond our control. We have an example of what runaway greenhouse effect looks like in the long run, it's Venus.
It's easy for you to say jobs, food and transport is too important for you as you live in a cold country, it's a bit harder to swallow for, say, island pacific nations who's islands are going to completely disappear, and jobs, food and transport are going to be exactly the problems for them, because all their infrastructure just disappeared with the island it's built on. Then they will have to migrate, to colder, safer countries, like your own, and you will have to share jobs, food, transport infrastructure with those refugees. In the end the actual problems with climate change ARE still jobs, food, transport, it's just a matter of time scale that differs.
It is also a ridiculous to automatically assume that combating carbon emissions should be automatically detrimental to jobs, food, transport etc. Moving into cleaner energy, finding ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere, improving transport infrastructure are all things that create more jobs. Yes some industries will become less viable if we were to move to drastically reduce emissions, due to no longer being economically competitive, it just means there will be a shift to other industries to provide the same needs. This is effectively a redistribution of wealth away from 'dirty industries', rather than a reduction of overall wealth.
Climate models have never helped us with anything, because the physics and computing power required to make accurate predictions did not exist until recently. Until we had these, most 'climate models' were based on historical data rather than the actual physics/physical science principles. Which operate on the erroneous principle that climate will operate the same way as it has historically. The problem with the more mechanistic model is that they aren't good at predicting short term phenomena, because there are too many perturbations we don't understand in the short term. But they are going to be far superior to previous models in the long term since they actually address the mechanistic causes of climate in the long term.
The problem is that it's hard to motivate people to solve problems in the long term, especially when talking a timespan longer than lifespans, even if the potential problems are apocalyptic. Change takes effort, and people just don't want to make even small sacrifices without that motivation of big, immediate problems that happen close by.
|
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them.
|
On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them.
It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done.
Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently.
All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now.
|
On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
|
On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it.
Because its all political. The panel is also biased in its assumptions and only works to sort of clump up and in any way confirm that humans cause global warming.
They don't even investigate the sun as a cause, its that level of absurdity. Read all of their reports and they don't mention the sun as a cause at all.
In their world the sun doesn't affect the warmth on the planet, its absolutely retarded really.
|
On September 29 2013 00:28 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it. Because its all political. The panel is also biased in its assumptions and only works to sort of clump up and in any way confirm that humans cause global warming. They don't even investigate the sun as a cause, its that level of absurdity. Read all of their reports and they don't mention the sun as a cause at all. In their world the sun doesn't affect the warmth on the planet, its absolutely retarded really.
More likely that they think the sun is so obviously not a cause, that it doesn't bear any mentioning. I mean really, its like what Farvacola said earlier. What kind of a world do you have to live in to think that the brightest scientists in the field don't factor the sun into the warming of the planet? You're right it would be retarded. That's probably why they have factored it in, and nobody talks about it because it isn't a factor and its obvious to all the scientists in the field.
If you want to understand, just type it in on google (actually here - I've linked an article), and read the clear answers provided by experts in the field as to why this is false.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
The main thing I've learned from the most vocal contributors in this topic is that basically people who have a different opinion are stupid. This is still a gaming forum, and if people just want to express scepticism this doesn't enforce them to back that scepticism up with tons of research on the matter.
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years.
So then even without knowing the entire model, apparently we're sure that men are a leading cause because of correlation. So now apparently, the earth hasn't warmed up at all in the last 15 years, which is so far an unexplained anomaly, yet we're so sure that this pause will end and then the warming up will continue. Also, we're sure that when CO2 increases, we will know exactly how it effects the entire planet.
In other fields, there's always an admittance that "maybe an effect was caused for something that was not actively controlled for during the study". And in those studies, actual precautions were made like randomizations to decrease the chance of this happening. This is not even possible here, as there is only one Earth. In the end, I feel the most pretentious ones are the people who say they know exactly what will happen and what exactly is the best way to fix it without admitting in the slightest that they don't have a single clue how to implement their ideas in modern society, and basically shoot down every single person who doesn't agree with their line of thinking saying "but the proof is here, the only reason you can disagree is because you don't comprehend it".
|
The report confirmed what that OP from the "AMA I'm a weather scientist" thread we had earlier this year said.
I lost the link but it should be an obligatory FAQ for anyone looking for answers about climate change... Too bad he doesn't answer anymore.
|
On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere?
As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
|
On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think.
|
On September 29 2013 01:56 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think. Well, at the end of the day people will vote for politicians that best represent their views on climate change. None of my snooty comments will change that.
My comments on merely focused on winning the war of ideas in cyberspace, where I believe ridicule has an important part to play. (For conformation, just look at what happened in the "science versus religion" culture wars).
|
On September 29 2013 02:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:56 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think. Well, at the end of the day people will vote for politicians that best represent their views on climate change. None of my snooty comments will change that. My comments on merely focused on winning the war of ideas in cyberspace, where I believe ridicule has an important part to play. (For conformation, just look at what happened in the "science versus religion" culture wars).
You aren't supposed to admit there was a cultural war on religion. Now you can't ridicule Bill O'Reilly.
I'd say that ridicule is the absolute worst way to try and win a war of ideas. Ridicule only makes your opposition more defensive and adamant in their convictions. Unfortunately ridicule and condescension are the most popular arguments on this forum. For example, I was trying to get into an interesting debate yesterday and I kept getting mindless insults like "tin foil hat paranoia." Needless to say I wasn't persuaded and looked down on my opponent as incapable of forming an articulate argument.
|
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
|
On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
And what's a fast way to reduce world population? Global warming!!! Nature has a way of working things out, doesn't she.
|
On September 29 2013 02:18 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population. And what's a fast way to reduce world population? Global warming!!! Nature has a way of working things out, doesn't she.
Well the truth of that remains to be seen.
|
On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
You may be looking for a fast solution, but again - to dismiss the slower solutions instead of improving upon those slower solutions (which, by the way, does not impede you from advocating your faster solution) is just silly. You want to stabilize or lower the world population? Go ahead and campaign for that. But to step out and say "your ideas of energy efficient buildings, transportation, and power sources are irrelevant, they'll never catch up to carbon output" is very dismissive and unhelpful.
|
On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF.
I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
lol @ how douchey that sounded.
|
There are so many variables that it is hard to say humans are the primary cause imho. What if nature changes climate much more than humans influence it? On the other hand, summer wasn't so hot like last year's summer. Global warming? Probably not. Climate change? Definitely.
|
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
|
On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted. If anyone is ad hominem toward you, it's because you deserve it.
Case in point: look at what you just did. You claimed that the IPCC go ad hominem "whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything". But of course they are the first to underline that they don't know everything. As scientists, their profession requires them to admit that they don't know everything. That is why they constantly throw out models and try new ones. That is why they constantly revise and update their work. That is why they say they're 95% certain rather than 100% certain.
Next you assert, without any supporting argument, that research funded by Greenpeace and the WWF can't be relied on. Unless you're some anti-environment fanatic, why would you judge a paper merely by its association to these organizations? If there's some untrustworthy piece of reasoning that the IPCC has based their study on, then let's hear what it is. Let's not hear an argument that the IPCC is untrustworthy because they referred to research that was funded by Greenpeace and the WWF.
|
On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted.
It's not ad hominem to dismiss somebody for being dumb when they are in fact being dumb. If somebody suggests scientists are wrong and the reason is <insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> they deserve to be shot down. It's not a "debate" just because two sides share different opinions. The nonsense and lack of accountability shown by the denier crowd in their form of argument is pretty inexcusable by this point, and would not be tolerated for a moment in an actual scientific setting. Little wonder so few of the people against the scientific consensus actually engage in real science.
|
Oh please save us IPCC! Save us big government! Increase our taxes, do whatever it takes! We have been frightened into total unquestioning submission to our omnipotent, benevolent and infallible scientist overlords! More government! More government! More government!
User was warned for this post
|
On September 29 2013 05:10 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Oh please save us IPCC! Save us big government! Increase our taxes, do whatever it takes! We have been frightened into total unquestioning submission to our omnipotent, benevolent and infallible scientist overlords! More government! More government! More government!
You do seem rather scared, but it'll all be ok. Tall buildings can be scary if you look straight up or down.
|
On September 29 2013 04:05 Aiello wrote:
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
Where did anyone make this argument here? Hmm.
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
With 7 billion people on earth it is inevitable that planetary events and changes are going to adversely effect SOME people right? Are we supposed to be able to protect 7 billion people simultaneously?
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Wait, does the temperature increase being (man made) actually make a difference? So like, if it wasn't (man made) it would be ok? Please explain. Your assertions remain totally unsubstantiated.
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
This is idealistic thinking. Do you really believe all of humanity is going to see the benefits of such technology? You are a peasant and so am I and so is everyone else on this website. We aren't all going to be saved by technology only very few will. The "strong and decisive action" you speak of will be bigger government, higher taxes and a lower quality of living for you and the rest of the peasant class.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise.
|
literally the dumbest argument of all time.
literally the dumbest claim of all time.
|
On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise.
Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans.
With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius.
As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
|
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
Where did anyone make this argument here? Hmm.
A lot of people were making this very same argument. They say that since the Earth has undergone huge climatic shifts over a timescale of millions of years, short term man made climate change is nothing is be scared of.
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
With 7 billion people on earth it is inevitable that planetary events and changes are going to adversely effect SOME people right? Are we supposed to be able to protect 7 billion people simultaneously?
No, but we do have a responsibility to keep the Earth habitable as it does not belong to us. If you're just minding your own business and then all of a sudden someone comes along and dumps a ton of toxic waste into your backyard you'd be pretty fucking pissed right?
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Wait, does the temperature increase being (man made) actually make a difference? So like, if it wasn't (man made) it would be ok? Please explain. Your assertions remain totally unsubstantiated.
but it is man made as all of the evidence demonstrates. The average temperature of the Earth does fluctuate over periods of millions of years, but at this specific time the average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate due to human activity. This rapid increase in temperature will make life on earth for a 7 billion people global civilization very difficult and unpleasant in the near future
On September 29 2013 05:31 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
This is idealistic thinking. Do you really believe all of humanity is going to see the benefits of such technology? You are a peasant and so am I and so is everyone else on this website. We aren't all going to be saved by technology only very few will. The "strong and decisive action" you speak of will be bigger government, higher taxes and a lower quality of living for you and the rest of the peasant class.
Well that's better than not doing anything and letting all of civilization fall in to war as we fight over ever diminishing resources and habitable land, food, and water and eventually become extinct. Just look at the wars we have already fought in the last decade over resources. Now multiple that by 100. Technological advances no doubt help the very rich the most, but in this case that's okay, because we are all in the same boat when it comes to climate change. No matter how much money you have you won't be-able to send your child to a school with a better climate than a poor person.
On September 29 2013 06:16 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:literally the dumbest claim of all time.
literally
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
|
On September 29 2013 04:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:38 Millitron wrote:On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF. I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted. If anyone is ad hominem toward you, it's because you deserve it. Case in point: look at what you just did. You claimed that the IPCC go ad hominem "whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything". But of course they are the first to underline that they don't know everything. As scientists, their profession requires them to admit that they don't know everything. That is why they constantly throw out models and try new ones. That is why they constantly revise and update their work. That is why they say they're 95% certain rather than 100% certain. Next you assert, without any supporting argument, that research funded by Greenpeace and the WWF can't be relied on. Unless you're some anti-environment fanatic, why would you judge a paper merely by its association to these organizations? If there's some untrustworthy piece of reasoning that the IPCC has based their study on, then let's hear what it is. Let's not hear an argument that the IPCC is untrustworthy because they referred to research that was funded by Greenpeace and the WWF.
I believe global warming is a thing, and I believe we're probably responsible. I'm not so sure we should care, but that's neither here nor there. In any case I think you need to take any organization, especially one as large as the IPCC and environmental community, with a grain of salt.
Greenpeace and WWF do not publish peer reviewed articles. Using their papers as fact is misleading since they aren't peer reviewed. And nobody is more biased on that side of the issue than Greenpeace. It's just as bad as climate change deniers citing data from Shell.
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate."
In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly.
It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong.
|
On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie.
![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion.
I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur.
|
On September 29 2013 09:43 FluffyBinLaden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion? Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly. It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong. How about you start by reading the report and explaining what exactly you find so "damn fishy"? As in a page number and claim. My guess is you wouldn't be able to. It's easy to vaguely discredit something using using weasel words. It's harder to make a substantive critique.
|
On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature.
Literally everything you've written is completely unsubstantiated or downright false, and you obviously have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about.
Your claim that temperature was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval period is a complete invention, as is your claim that the medieval period was a golden period for humans.
The idea that we can easily deal with a +/- 5 degrees increase easily is obviously something you came up with yourself, and all the data we have shows that an increase of +/- 3 degrees would be completely anormal.
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15.
As to human contribution being 0.1% or less, this figure is completely unsupported by scientific evidence, and you are completely deluded is you think the alignment of the planets is what is causing climate change.
|
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur.
Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one.
So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why.
Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better.
I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care.
This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
You have a community whose job it is to find out the truth, guided by a tradition that safeguards intellectual integrity, pitted against businessmen who are thoroughly immersed in a culture of greed and lies and deception.
This statement makes me cringe, it's quite disturbing how people think that scientists are near-immune to the 'greed' and 'deception' imputed to other people. I say this as someone that does research (however my hypotheses are generally falsifiable, likely the climate science crowd would disapprove ~) and has a passing familiarity with the process of writing grant applications / renewals. Political concerns are often linked to likelihood of funding, and scientists are rational people that respond to incentives.
anyways I find it interesting that the following statement from the June 7 final draft of AR5 is missing from the most recent version*:
Models do not generally
reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium
confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by
unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic,
and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing
greenhouse-gas forcing.
The validity of the models is predicated on an understanding of climate sensitivity which is the crux of what this IPCC report is trying to establish, no?
*interestingly, in the June 7 draft, heading the section where that paragraph is contained, there's the statement
There is very high confidence that climate models reproduce the observed large-scale patterns and multi-decadal trends in surface temperature, especially since the mid-20th century
if the 'reduction in surface warming' persists for another 5 years, that would make it a multi-decadal trend. The released version changes this to:
Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades
I wonder why they changed the phrasing that way ~
|
On September 29 2013 09:57 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:43 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion? Thanks man, that's a really astute and inspiring explanation of the real thing going on. You've addressed my skepticism perfectly. It's not the first time people have used the media to promote an agenda, even if it's a just one. I'm not a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or a scientist of any kind, but I'm not a moron, thanks. If my concerns are completely invalid, then EXPLAIN to me why, please. I'd like to be wrong. How about you start by reading the report and explaining what exactly you find so "damn fishy"? As in a page number and claim. My guess is you wouldn't be able to. It's easy to vaguely discredit something using using weasel words. It's harder to make a substantive critique.
See, I'd read the actual report, but apparently I'm only allowed access to a summary.
|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
I have to admit not being sure on this (and I had to google trough and peak) but could that graph be considered a through to peak graph as you call it? You could probably take any starting year since the 19th century and the main difference would be that you would not have such a good-looking linear regression.
The reference to Soviet and 1935 is quite silly. But, hey, yeah...
@Fluffy: Reading the summary is probably a good start. According to their page the final draft will be release tomorrow.
"The accepted Final Draft of the full Working Group I report, comprising the Technical Summary, 14 Chapters and three Annexes, will be released online in unedited form on Monday 30 September."
|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask?
It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so.
Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science!
|
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media?
|
On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15.
This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic.
The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting.
What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
|
What do they teach in schools about climate change? I've heard in some schools they try to present two sides to the argument to make a fake 'objective' point, much like how the media works in the western world. Is that true?
Another thing, having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less.
|
On September 29 2013 13:49 stroggozzz wrote:
having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less.
Really? That's strange. I could have sworn I just recently heard about Africans poisoning water holes to massacre endangered Elephants en-masse.
That's only the latest in a continuous string of atrocious treatment of the environment I hear come from developing countries.
In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science!
yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception?
|
On September 29 2013 14:37 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science! yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception?
General appeals to the fallibility of people do a poor job of arguing the point that specifically this bit of climate science is flawed beyond recompense.
|
On September 29 2013 13:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:49 stroggozzz wrote:
having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less. Really? That's strange. I could have sworn I just recently heard about Africans poisoning water holes to massacre endangered Elephants en-masse. That's only the latest in a continuous string of atrocious treatment of the environment I hear come from developing countries. In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment.
only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world.
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdf
Much of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example.
I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On September 29 2013 14:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:37 419 wrote:On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science! yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception? General appeals to the fallibility of people do a poor job of arguing the point that specifically this bit of climate science is flawed beyond recompense.
Wasn't trying to, was just trying to point out that scientists are not immune from the parts of human nature that keep us from being completely objective.
|
On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food.
It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming.
Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species.
You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
|
On September 29 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media?
I have no idea about what water misuse entails?
Air pollution has a lot of overlap with climate change debate. Most significantly, will the reduction in fossil fuels reduce the pollution from cars and to a lesser degree coal fired electricity and heat production.
Soil erosion depends. However some of the effects are exacerbated by higher carbonic acid concentration and thus lower pH. There are significant nitrogen cycle problems that might need help as much or more on this issue, though.
Nitrogen cycle disruption is extremely non-specific. However, as far as I understand the burning of fossil fuels is a significant part of the what of the problem. Therefore that part of the solution is one of the same as in climate change.
Deforestation is removal of a carbon-sink. It is pretty huge in terms of contributing to global warming. Therefore the means to stop it benifits both.
Wildlife habitat loss is to some degree already a result of climate changes. The expected changes to climate will only make that contribution larger.
Phosphor cycle disruption (I expect that is what you meant?) is again very non-specific. I think it is independent from climate change and has to do with waste water management and aricultural legislation, but again...
Climate science does nothing against overfishing (EU already has heavy regulation to prevent this), poaching (already illegal globally. More enforcement is the only possible improvement here), pesticide drift (heavily regulated area in EU by several means), human overpopulation (not necessarily as much of a problem as it is a potential problem in the future).
A lot of the non-climate change problems you mentioned already has significant legislation in EU and probably to some degree most other countries. Most of the rest have significant subsets relying on specific climate change solutions. Climate change is more of an umbrella of different tools to curtail a host of other problems too. There are senseless ideas that only effect climate science but on the bigger issues (energy production, transport and anti deforestation) the secondary benefits are significant.
Edit: Oh the irony of spelling phosphor wrong!
|
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food. It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species. You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
I've read a few climate change reports, the IPCC is the most mild of the ones i read. There was one done by MIT in 2012 that predicted a scenario worse than the worst case scenario in the IPCC. Yes i have faith in the scientific method, and the scientists that carry out these investigations. Humans can't know everything, otherwise they would be god. They have to have faith in 99.999% of stuff. And from my experience i would rather put my faith in a massive group of scientists than the media or my next door neighbor about the facts on climate change.
Why are you pointing so hard at this african that destroys the environment? There are millions of african farmers that will suffer from droughts, and Indians in Calcutta already suffer a lot from salinization and droughts. They are far more compromised about what they can do about the environment compared to people that earn 1million$ a day.
Im not making an argument for people destroying the environment being immoral. We are all compromised, we all destroy the environment to some degree, but some people are more compromised between money and values than others.
The fact is america, canada, cause a lot of harm to the environment and want to take no responsibility for it. Where as developing countries actually are taking more responsibility for it, even though they are more compromised. Anyone who looks at the Kyoto protocol can see that. New Zealand isn't doing much either.
And it's easy to see why, because being taxed on emissions would harm a corporations goal to maximize their short term profits(not their long term or their grandchildren profits)
And wealth and intelligence don't correlate. Wealthy people have access to more/better education, but they also share each others values and opinions when living in a plutocracy. I can't help but think that some of them don't want to believe the facts about climate change, as it's a conflict to their interests.
|
You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
Wow, really.....
This thread is starting to become silly - yet it's always baffling how prevailing such sentiments are/have become. Kudos to the people taking their time to repy
|
On September 29 2013 16:01 stroggozzz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food. It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species. You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences. I've read a few climate change reports, the IPCC is the most mild of the ones i read. There was one done by MIT in 2012 that predicted a scenario worse than the worst case scenario in the IPCC. Yes i have faith in the scientific method, and the scientists that carry out these investigations. Humans can't know everything, otherwise they would be god. They have to have faith in 99.999% of stuff. And from my experience i would rather put my faith in a massive group of scientists than the media or my next door neighbor about the facts on climate change. Why are you pointing so hard at this african that destroys the environment? There are millions of african farmers that will suffer from droughts, and Indians in Calcutta already suffer a lot from salinization and droughts. They are far more compromised about what they can do about the environment compared to people that earn 1million$ a day. Im not making an argument for people destroying the environment being immoral. We are all compromised, we all destroy the environment to some degree, but some people are more compromised between money and values than others. The fact is america, canada, cause a lot of harm to the environment and want to take no responsibility for it. Where as developing countries actually are taking more responsibility for it, even though they are more compromised. Anyone who looks at the Kyoto protocol can see that. New Zealand isn't doing much either. And it's easy to see why, because being taxed on emissions would harm a corporations goal to maximize their short term profits(not their long term or their grandchildren profits) And wealth and intelligence don't correlate. Wealthy people have access to more/better education, but they also share each others values and opinions when living in a plutocracy. I can't help but think that some of them don't want to believe the facts about climate change, as it's a conflict to their interests.
I am only trying to get you to understand simple logic.
If you came up to me and said "give me $10,000 right now or I will die" I would tell you to take a hike. That would not, however, mean I wish you to die. It would mean I don't believe in your premise that I have to pay you to save your life.
Wealthy Westerners not believing in global warming doesn't mean they don't care about the environment. It means they don't believe in your "if x then y" apocalyptic scenario.
I keep mentioning developing nations' abysmal track record on environmental protection because you made a claim (namely that people in developing nations care more about environmentalism) that was frighteningly detached from reality and I am trying to bring you down to earth. All my life the green movement has been lead and promoted by Western nations, primarily the well off middle or upper classes of those nations. Meanwhile developing nations have been devastating the environment in shockingly cruel and uncaring ways--like mass poisoning of endangered species--while Western charities desperately try to intervene and stop the damage.
You seem to be confusing means with desire. Sure, African poachers don't have a metaphorical "nuclear bomb" to kill all elephants, but they sure do kill as many as they can with the means available to them.
|
On September 29 2013 16:15 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences. Wow, really..... This thread is starting to become silly - yet it's always baffling how prevailing such sentiments are/have become. Kudos to the people taking their time to repy
My statement is very coherent and logical. If you follow the thread of conversation you will probably understand. Let me assist you:
stroggozzz: "having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less. "
myself: "Really? That's strange. [...] In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment."
stroggozzz: "only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america"
As you can see stroggozzz fallaciously assumed everyone agrees with him that a) global warming is real and b) it will have disastrous consequences. Thus he erroneously concludes people who don't see it as a serious issue simply don't care about the consequences he believes will result.
In context my analogy is perfect. Someone with a faith based belief (Christian) meets a skeptic (non-Christian) and then wrongly claims that the disbeliever secretly believes in but doesn't care about the consequences (eternal damnation) rather than simply not believing in the supposed consequences that believers claim will happen if you don't follow their rules.
If that is still confusing to you I used a different analogy in my later post:
If you came up to me and said "give me $10,000 right now or I will die" I would tell you to take a hike. That would not, however, mean I wish you to die. It would mean I don't believe in your premise that I have to pay you to save your life.
Surely you understand now, yes?
|
On September 28 2013 23:10 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close! The problem is not that the world will be a fraction of a degree warmer, the problem is that over a long period of time the increased temperature will, according to physics models, cause the release of even more carbon emissions (from naturally captured carbon) pushing the greenhouse effect beyond our control. We have an example of what runaway greenhouse effect looks like in the long run, it's Venus.
Afaik most scientists would agree that the runaway greenhouse is NOT a likely outcome for Earth, even if we burned all fossil fuels available. It's true that the sun is hotter than back in the days when the CO2 levels were much higher, but the fact that Earth was going through an Ice Age very recently shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were extremely low to begin with.
On geological time scales CO2 is removed from the atmosphere - an effect which is at least partly responsible for the relatively cold climate including Ice Ages in the last geological era - and human emission is unlikely to have lasting consequences beyond a point several 10000 years in the future (still enough to hurt ourselves). The Ice Ages will come back eventually.
( In all likelihood all plants will die because of a lack of CO2 in a few hundred million years - way before the Sun boils away the oceans in a billion years or so. But that's all so far away, we shouldn't concern ourselves with it )
|
Here's an interesting article that puts the extreme alarmism over global warming and the proposed "solutions" into perspective.
A question for Oreskes – But what do we mean by consensus?
Australia emits just 1.2%[25],[26] of global anthropogenic CO2. No more than 5% of Australia’s emissions can now be cut this decade, so no more than 0.06% of global emissions will be abated by 2020. Then CO2 concentration will fall from the now-predicted 410 μatm[27] to 409.988 μatm. In turn, predicted temperature will fall, but only by 0.00005 Cº, or 1/1000 of the minimum detectable global temperature change. This is mainstream, consensus IPCC climatology.
The cost of this minuscule abatement over ten years will be $162 billion[28], equivalent to $3.2 quadrillion/Cº. Abating just the worldwide mean warming of 0.17 Cº predicted for this decade would cost $540 trillion, or $77,000/head worldwide, or 80% of ten years’ global GDP[29]. No surprise, then, that in the economic literature the near-unanimous consensus is that mitigation will cost more than adaptation[30],[31]. The premium vastly exceeds the cost of the risk insured. The cost of immediate mitigation typically exceeds by 1-2 orders of magnitude that of eventual adaptation.[32]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes-but-what-do-we-mean-by-consensus/
|
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say..
|
On September 29 2013 15:44 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media? I have no idea about what water misuse entails?
I think it means wasting drinking water by flushing toilets with it, bathing etc., instead of using it just for drinking and cooking.
|
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming.
I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming.
Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work.
The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks.
|
On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks.
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
|
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
Seems somewhat of a double standard.
So scientists are susceptible to bias towards results that benefit their own interests. But at least they have to work in a regime of thinking that is designed to promote empirical analysis and combat these biases. The system may not be perfect, nor their adherence to it, but it does bound just how much their results can be affected by bias and still in the ballpark of scientific respectability.
Surely given the 2 possible hypothesis:
1. Rich people don't as a demographic believe in man-made global warning because they are intelligent and have too good of a grasp of empirical analysis to fall for doomsaying.
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Surely, given that you believe climate scientists are more driven by their bias than how compelling the data and models they have are. Then given the same standards, the former hypothesis would look vanishingly unlikely compared to the latter. Considering they have on average, more to gain(or lose), and less training in empirical analytical methods.
On another note, it would be interesting if there were information on the opinions of the non-climate science, scientific community as a demographic. As they would have both the technical capabilities for extracting information from data, as well as assumedly less bias either way.
|
On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution.
A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense.
On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it?
Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position.
Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area).
I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately.
The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem.
Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad.
Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest.
The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction.
|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
So which is it? The graph is deliberately misleading because it is trough to peak or the data is all bunk?
This is again, the kind of dismissive bullshit that deniers throw out, one sentence about "sciencey" stuff and the rest about how its all bunk, and how the the big evil "media" or "government" is pushing something for some nefarious gain. Yeah, the models are all bunk and the data are all terrible. Good job there, you sound like you've done your research. Care to go more in-depth than that or is that how much attention you've given the issue?
So care to elaborate on the last time scientists pushed the media to publicize a "boogeyman" for their personal gain? Somehow all the scientists have to get together and push for a common goal.... while the average post-doc climatologist is getting paid sub 50k and stands to gain so much more from talking about how weather change is wrong (book deals, regular interviews in the media, speaking fees) vs just being one of many who are pushing the media to publicize that boogeyman.
|
On September 29 2013 17:19 Incognoto wrote:
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say..
It's hard to say in the sense that you need thorough studies to answer the question. But those studies have been done. They've shown the answer is yes. How about reading the IPCC report?
|
On September 29 2013 21:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 17:19 Incognoto wrote:
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say.. It's hard to say in the sense that you need thorough studies to answer the question. But those studies have been done. They've shown the answer is yes. How about reading the IPCC report?
To add to this:
1) Water vapor and CO2 are both well known to trap heat. That fact was probably discovered by a climatologist. Do you think that the climatologists who discovered that fact forgot about it? Anyways, just because one is greater in magnitude doesn't mean anything, especially if the greater one is relatively stable. If you have a tub of water with 10 liters of water in it, and you add 1 liter of oil to it, is the volume going to stay the same just because the oil is in the minority?
2) Climate changes naturally. Yes. That's not the current question. The question is, is the current rate of change due in part to human influence?
|
On September 29 2013 20:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position. Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area). I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately. The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem. Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad. Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest. The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction.
When comparing the costs of mitigation to the cost of adaptation, nobody is suggesting we leave developing countries high and dry. Even if we wanted to abandon them, international business would suffer financial harm from doing so.
The relative share of these costs paid by the wealthy will not change either way. The absolute amount of costs might be different, but there's no reason to suspect that wealthy people will be able to avoid their "fair share" (so-to-speak) of the financial burden caused by global warming if it comes to pass.
Wealthy people are not short sighted buffoons. In fact they tend to value hypothetical future profits more than money right now. This is called time preference, and more intelligent and wealthier people tend to think farther in the future.
Using occams razor as a guide I think the most reasonable conclusion is that wealthy people would certainly act to avoid a financial catastrophe caused by global warming if they thought that scenario were plausible. Polls showing they consider it a relative non-issue indicate only that they are skeptical, not that they are uncaring.
|
On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think?
I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
|
On September 29 2013 21:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 20:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position. Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area). I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately. The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem. Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad. Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest. The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction. When comparing the costs of mitigation to the cost of adaptation, nobody is suggesting we leave developing countries high and dry. Even if we wanted to abandon them, international business would suffer financial harm from doing so. The relative share of these costs paid by the wealthy will not change either way. The absolute amount of costs might be different, but there's no reason to suspect that wealthy people will be able to avoid their "fair share" (so-to-speak) of the financial burden caused by global warming if it comes to pass. Wealthy people are not short sighted buffoons. In fact they tend to value hypothetical future profits more than money right now. This is called time preference, and more intelligent and wealthier people tend to think farther in the future. Using occams razor as a guide I think the most reasonable conclusion is that wealthy people would certainly act to avoid a financial catastrophe caused by global warming if they thought that scenario were plausible. Polls showing they consider it a relative non-issue indicate only that they are skeptical, not that they are uncaring.
Could you provide some evidence pertaining to the cost of mitigation vs. the costs of adaption please. You seem to take it as a given that the former is more expensive.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 22:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think? I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
Basically that.
I'm not saying that the wealthy believe, but choose to ignore, climate change because they are selfish. I'm saying that they are predispositioned to, and indeed do disbelieve climate change because they are selfish (eg they would bear a disproportionate portion of the cost of addressing the issue).
If you propose that climate scientists suffer a cognitive bias towards interpreting climate data/models to confirming man made climate change, then surely, applying the same principle to the wealthy, they would suffer a cognitive bias against that confirmation, since it's obviously better (not only absolutely, but also relatively) for them if it weren't a problem than if it were.
Unless you are somehow proposing that the wealthy, as a demographic are less prone to the same cognitive bias than climate scientists as a demographic, which I think would be a difficult case to make.
|
It's important to question the consensus of the scientific community and ask if they have a blind spot. That doesn't give you a free pass to behave like a creationist and reject their conclusions and their expertise outright on only the flimsiest and most suspect of grounds.
Some of the arguments being put forward by denialists are just unparalleled in their dishonesty. The latest one by Fox, for instance, that the report contains "nine publications produced in part or wholly by the WWF". No mention that over 6,000 peer-reviewed studies are cited and the conclusion of the IPCC doesn't hinge on any particular nine of them. Or that Fox is always using research carried out by "activist" groups such as right-wing think tanks who receive their funding from oil companies.
|
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. The other side of the coin is that wealthy people better at lying and are more selfish and ruthless on average than poorer people. Their profession teaches them to hoard and to work for their own gain at the expense of other people, whereas the scientists are taught to value intellectual honesty and they're trained in a methodology for seeking the truth that is the best the human species have ever discovered.
As I say, that's the other way of looking at it. The truth always lies in between, but I'll wager that my version comes a lot closer than your preposterous "Rich people are too smart for climate change" hypothesis.
|
On September 29 2013 22:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think? I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
I don't recall directing anything at climatologists at all. This entire tangent was sparked by someone who claimed people in developing countries care more about the environment than Westerners, which is so bizarrely inaccurate it almost made my eyes pop out of my head. To justify his claim he then linked a poll showing people who earn over $1,000,000 consider global warming to not be an issue.
How millionaires became representative of all westerners I am not sure. How he made the logical leap from not an issue to serious issue, but don't care is another problem I am struggling to understand.
I now suspect he was just trying to frame the argument in emotional terms (good vs. evil) rather than trying to raise any serious point for discussion. And by now we are way off track.
Everyone is biased. I like the adage "actions speak louder than words". If wealthy people think global warming is a threat their actions certainly don't indicate that. If advocates for a carbon tax like Al Gore (also wealthy, but I digress) think global warming is a threat, their actions don't indicate that either. I myself will start to take this issue seriously when Al Gore et al show they themselves take it seriously by sacrificing some of their own wealth and/or jetsetting lifestyle. After all, surely giving up a bit of their money or modern conveniences would be a small sacrifice to save the world? Their actions suggest they only seek profit and the claims of environmental disaster are an avenue to such profits.
|
the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/
“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979.
Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/68ihdOp.png)
As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. "
The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported
|
It's a pretty sad thing about our culture that this stuff even needs to be said. I don't recall reading about Einstein and Oppenheimer from their Fortune 500 profiles.
Is it weird that people with high intellects enjoy intellectual-pursuits more than the pursuit of wealth? No, it's logical.
Just as it's logical that the people with the most comprehensive knowledge about the climate would be climatologists, not the CEOs of auto and oil industries.
|
On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported
Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people.
From your own article:
Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion:
So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence.
Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
|
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you:
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
|
On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you: Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
A simple misunderstanding. No worries.
|
On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
They are mostly not evil. They are just have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Most wealthy people have no idea about statistics and climatology, why should I care what they think ? They will and have in the past let events perspire that caused massive economic problems, starvation and civil unrest. Not necessarily because they are so evil, but because as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions.
|
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
generally people doing better in the economy also value the current generation and current success over that of future generations. it makes sense why they wouldn't like global warming.
|
On September 30 2013 00:36 mcc wrote:
as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions.
Thank Science we have men of the cloth who are above all those human foibles.
|
On September 29 2013 21:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 20:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position. Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area). I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately. The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem. Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad. Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest. The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction. When comparing the costs of mitigation to the cost of adaptation, nobody is suggesting we leave developing countries high and dry. Even if we wanted to abandon them, international business would suffer financial harm from doing so. The relative share of these costs paid by the wealthy will not change either way. The absolute amount of costs might be different, but there's no reason to suspect that wealthy people will be able to avoid their "fair share" (so-to-speak) of the financial burden caused by global warming if it comes to pass. Wealthy people are not short sighted buffoons. In fact they tend to value hypothetical future profits more than money right now. This is called time preference, and more intelligent and wealthier people tend to think farther in the future. Using occams razor as a guide I think the most reasonable conclusion is that wealthy people would certainly act to avoid a financial catastrophe caused by global warming if they thought that scenario were plausible. Polls showing they consider it a relative non-issue indicate only that they are skeptical, not that they are uncaring.
Time discounting is not infinite. Even in people most willing to delay gratification it is far below the scale of generations. And what you say applies to scientists even more than to wealthy people, especially considering that they are the more intelligent and knowledgable group. The second attribute being much more important in complex scenarios where even the most intelligent person without knowledge is useless in predicting.
|
On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you: On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. A simple misunderstanding. No worries.
No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak.
Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20).
http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf
|
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
I highly doubt that the studies of income and intelligence cover in any significant way people earning 1mln and more. I also highly doubt that they are on average smarter than people let's say earning 250k - 1mln. If you have any such evidence I would love to see it.
|
On September 30 2013 00:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you: On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. A simple misunderstanding. No worries. No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak. Show nested quote +Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20). http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf
The misunderstanding was yours, friend.
I will reiterate:
Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more than others. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
Your own agree with what I have said. You are the one who came in here trying to create strawmen by using the word "robust" when I only said "somewhat". You are the one who is wrong.
|
On September 30 2013 00:43 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:36 mcc wrote:
as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions. Thank Science we have men of the cloth who are above all those human foibles.
Nope scientists are also in that category. Should have actually used all, instead of most. But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct. All thanks to the fact that I specifically used word "singular". Science and similar collaborative efforts can actually minimize the biases and self-delusions if they are well-designed. Science has shown historically to be well-designed system.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
I think it's safe to say for those earning above 1 mill, they are the exception to the rule, given that almost certainly not working in a profession (and therefore not earning income via the same mechanism as most people) as they are likely to be CEOs/managerial/executive positions or entrepreneurs, as opposed to the professions. And outliers to these demographics even so.
Given that $1,000,000 is going to be at least $800,000 above what people get as a salary/wage from even very high paying jobs, and at the rate of $700 per point of IQ(just to be extra conservative), thats still over 1000 IQ points of difference if we were to go by that rule. That's over 70 standard deviations above not just the norm but pretty much the highest paying professional jobs.
I think it's clear that people earning over 1 million a year are clearly not going to conform to this correlation. Given that IQ, by design is normally distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, being 70 standard deviations above the norm is clearly ridiculous (You'd be one in a number that is is ludicrously larger than the number of people that have ever existed, to compare, a mere 7 standard deviations puts you as 1 in ~780billion, and your obviously just testing the limits of whatever IQ test your taking).
They might well be intelligent people, but given that this demographic would be heavily slated towards CEOs, actors, sportsmen etc, and given the ludicrous IQs (which I'm fairly sure no test can could even yield) that the correlation would require, it's fair to say these are the outliers, and not just the top end of the bell curve.
Given the alternative is that the rule says that the odds of even 1 person earning more than $1,000,000 is astronomically low, the odds of 2 such people existing is as physicists would glibly put it: On average you would need to wait much longer than the expected age of the universe to observe this event.
|
On September 30 2013 00:59 mcc wrote:
But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct.
If we are keeping score it seems skeptics have been correct and climatologists wrong over most of the short term predictions.
The skeptics are more likely to be correct judging by their track record.
|
On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming.
Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd.
0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet.
There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is.
|
On September 30 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you: On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. A simple misunderstanding. No worries. No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak. Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20). http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf The misunderstanding was yours, friend. I will reiterate: Your own agree with what I have said. You are the one who came in here trying to create strawmen by using the word "robust" when I only said "somewhat". You are the one who is wrong.
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak
|
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
Again, this was a misunderstanding on your part. The discussion was never about "wealth" in the sense of how much savings people have at various levels of income. I used the word "wealthy" in reference to a group of people we were discussing who have incomes over $1,000,000/year. I think it is fair to call people earning that much "wealthy", though I can see how you misinterpreted it.
I don't really see how you are still misinterpreting it though. How odd.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
There is a significant correlation between IQ and income, strong enough to draw conclusions such as "each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year" from. And more than strong enough to support every statement I have said. I actually understated the correlation when I said "somewhat" because I didn't want to start any petty and stupid arguments.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
Any argument made on the basis of your own misunderstanding is weaker still.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak
My statements are strongly supported by the fact that climatologist predictions so far have been wrong.
|
On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is.
If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions.
All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet.
This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make.
Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble)
The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit.
|
On September 30 2013 01:22 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
Again, this was a misunderstanding on your part. The discussion was never about "wealth" in the sense of how much savings people have at various levels of income. I used the word "wealthy" in reference to a group of people we were discussing who have incomes over $1,000,000/year. I think it is fair to call people earning that much "wealthy", though I can see how you misinterpreted it. I don't really see how you are still misinterpreting it though. How odd. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
There is a significant correlation between IQ and income, strong enough to draw conclusions such as "each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year" from. And more than strong enough to support every statement I have said. I actually understated the correlation when I said "somewhat" because I didn't want to start any petty and stupid arguments. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
Any argument made on the basis of your own misunderstanding is weaker still. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak My statements are strongly supported by the fact that climatologist predictions so far have been wrong.
Odder yet is that you are somehow still wedded to the idea that income and IQ correlate strongly enough to make such statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change", especially with regard to those in the $1,000,000/year category which aren't even subject to the weak IQ-income correlation observed given the range of incomes studied.
How odd indeed.
|
On September 30 2013 01:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change"
Where is this quote from?
|
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is rife on this subject. It's quite easy for people who don't know the first thing about science to be so complacent about dismissing the scientific method and instead trusting the hearsay of tabloids and Fox News.
|
On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit.
Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief".
|
On September 30 2013 01:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change" Where is this quote from?
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of".
On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief".
The loose logic that rich people = smart overrides the fact that climate scientists are the only ones that may opine authoritatively on climate change. Who knew!?
|
On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens.
|
On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of".
Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun.
On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The loose logic that rich people = smart overrides the fact that climate scientists are the only ones that may opine authoritatively on climate change. Who knew!?
"Rich people" were his words which I left in my fixed version, but maybe this can help with your confusion:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
|
|
|
People who earn over a million a year are also the most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change regulation, and yet you ignore this.
Lol and your primary source material is whatsupwiththat, a hilarious soapbox for a dude with little professional gravitas. At least he has fan here though
|
On September 30 2013 02:08 farvacola wrote:People who earn over a million a year are also the most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change regulation, and yet you ignore this. Lol and your primary source material is whatsupwiththat, a hilarious soapbox for a dude with little professional gravitas. At least he has fan here though
This was addressed earlier. Read just a couple pages back.
They are also most likely to have their wealth affected by climate change. (yet you ignore this).
|
In the end, it doesn't really matter; general appeals as to the superior decision making skills of the wealthy, particularly when it comes to climate change, are silly and beg further qualification beyond what you are capable of providing. Which rich people are we talking about, and what are their interests?
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ Lol, what the hell is that? You take some dubious attempt to quantify the consensus and use it to show there is no consensus?
Do you not understand why that is a strawman?
One doesn't need such dubious methods of quantifying the consensus when there's a whole host of surveys of scientists, virtually all of them indicating a broad consensus among scientists in favour of anthropogenic global warming.
There's a very helpful graph:
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsieH1FiLKM/UMxzlpM2cKI/AAAAAAAAACA/d36QW32ycuY/s400/Climate_science_opinion2.png) :
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun.
It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat.
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning.
|
On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat.
You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires.
On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning.
"The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
|
But the results of that study have absolutely no bearing on the statement: "People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief."
So try again.
|
On September 30 2013 01:03 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:59 mcc wrote:
But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct. If we are keeping score it seems skeptics have been correct and climatologists wrong over most of the short term predictions. The skeptics are more likely to be correct judging by their track record.
What ? What predictions are you talking about ?
|
On September 30 2013 02:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat. You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYour only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning. "The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
You understand hopefully that this study has no bearing on people who are such outliers. You cannot conclude anything out of it. Or you might end up with IQs in the range of 1000s
|
On September 30 2013 03:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of". Quotes sure do sound silly when nobody said them and they are just fabricated strawmen designed to be silly. How fun. It embodies the substance of your statements about income and intelligence. The point of summarizing a batch of quotes into a generalized quote is to avoid the need for picking out each individually. You're avoiding the brunt in order to nitpick over the topic of quotations. Neat. You didn't summarize anything, you fabricated a strawman. Nothing I said was equivalent to what you said when you decided to fabricate a straw man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYour only contributions to this thread are strawmen and your own stubborn misunderstanding over the use of the word "wealthy" to describe millionaires. On September 30 2013 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:
"People who earn $1,000,000+/year are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief." Source? Sounds like the wild hypothesis of one guy with one wild set of opinions, so I'm not sure why it matters at all. But feel free to set me straight and point me in the direction of any respected scholarly papers that agree with this line of reasoning. "The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
"This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php You understand hopefully that this study has no bearing on people who are such outliers. You cannot conclude anything out of it. Or you might end up with IQs in the range of 1000s Maybe they're like Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I heard he has an IQ of a billion!
|
On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ You quoted a trashy blog by a TV "meterologist" without a college degree. That doesn't count as evidence for anything, and he certainly isn't an expert.
|
On September 30 2013 05:48 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:06 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:59 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens. No they don't.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ You quoted a trashy blog by a TV "meterologist" without a college degree. That doesn't count as evidence for anything, and he certainly isn't an expert.
All the article does is quote scientists. You don't need a degree or some kind of scientific cred to quote someone.
|
On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. Show nested quote +All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit.
CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it.
So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence.
Your "scientists"; which actually global warming was first global cooling in the 70's where they said we are headed towards an ice age and then of course it got warmer and warmer and they had to lie again and say its getting warmer and we are heading for such warm period that by 2000 most of the continents will be under water, the lush forests would become deserts, bla, bla, bla, lies after lies after lies.
Of course when they found out it wasn't even getting warmer in about 2000 they started slowly shifting from global warming to "climate change". Now everything that ever happened, rain, snow, warm, cold, increase in temperature, decrease, more snow, less snow would be humans fault for releasing CO2 and we would obviously need to pay carbon taxes and buy carbon credits from Al-Gore and the Rothschilds family for them to magically save us from the global cooling/warming/climate change.
Of course big oil funds all this crap since coal is their main competition. BP was one of the first supporters and funders of man made global warming.
|
On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. Show nested quote +What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes.
The line in the report is:
"Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning.
|
On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. Your "scientists"; which actually global warming was first global cooling in the 70's where they said we are headed towards an ice age and then of course it got warmer and warmer and they had to lie again and say its getting warmer and we are heading for such warm period that by 2000 most of the continents will be under water, the lush forests would become deserts, bla, bla, bla, lies after lies after lies. Of course when they found out it wasn't even getting warmer in about 2000 they started slowly shifting from global warming to "climate change". Now everything that ever happened, rain, snow, warm, cold, increase in temperature, decrease, more snow, less snow would be humans fault for releasing CO2 and we would obviously need to pay carbon taxes and buy carbon credits from Al-Gore and the Rothschilds family for them to magically save us from the global cooling/warming/climate change. Of course big oil funds all this crap since coal is their main competition. BP was one of the first supporters and funders of man made global warming.
I don't know where you pull your figures from, since they are completely wrong. Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 were at 280 ppm, and the current level of CO2 sits at slightly over 400 ppm, which is more than a 40% increase. As to your crazy conspiracy theories about oil companies inventing climate change, I have nothing to say that basic logic couldn't cover.
|
On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence.
I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels.
You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying.
I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate.
|
On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate.
That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality.
The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years.
It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature.
|
According to whom is that figure insignificant, and how does their general reputation stand up against others who disagree?
|
On September 30 2013 07:01 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate. That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality. The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years. It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature.
I don't know where exacly you get those values from but according to This it has actually gone up by 35% and not the 8.5% your numbers indicate.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
|
On September 30 2013 06:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/ You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes. The line in the report is: "Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning.
The IPCC report downplays the wrong predictions in as flattering a way to themselves they possibly can. That's no surprise.
The quote you pointed does indeed seem to be referring to the lack of observed temperature increase for over a decade. The Time article is correct about the lack of warming, and there's not much else that quote could be referring to.
|
On September 28 2013 05:54 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol. You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape. And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning? Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon.
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 30 2013 08:44 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/ You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes. The line in the report is: "Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning. The IPCC report downplays the wrong predictions in as flattering a way to themselves they possibly can. That's no surprise. The quote you pointed does indeed seem to be referring to the lack of observed temperature increase for over a decade. The Time article is correct about the lack of warming, and there's not much else that quote could be referring to.
Just going to relink an earlier graph as I think it's enlightening when placed along side the graph above.
'skeptics' simply keep changing their dates for 'Global Cooling', constantly confusing short-term noise and long-term trends
This is the article which zeal. used when he linked it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
Also might as well link the other article on the same site about ocean temperatures as it gives a little bit of a broader picture of the problem even if we confine ourselves to the same short period of time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.
And here is a link to the section of the site which sorts climate myths by taxonomy for any skeptics who are simply looking for more information. I found it particularly helpful myself.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
|
If we assume that Global Warming is mainly man- made, and we assume this would be proven beyond any doubt, what would that change?
Close to nothing.
Like hell states like China would just stop polluting, and why would they?
We had our industrial revolution, building up our countries on the cost of the environment, assuming climate change is mainly man made. Now that were at the top, we got the money and know how to do it cleaner too. Other countries dont, or at least not without significantly slowing down their economy growth.
Once again the 1. World is like: " Yeh, we did it, but you shouldnt be allowed to do it". And as long 1 big country has an advantage by not caring about the environment, others will just do the same, to stay competetive.
A question, which is deemed, this important, yet would barely change anything if answered, is, at least with this much effort/money put into it, sort of wasted energy.
Im not saying this isnt an important topic, or not worth it, i truly think it is, if the theory proves correct.
But staying realistic, it wont change much in global politics, therefore, waste of money and resources, at least with the amount put into it.
They should try a different approach. Take the research money on this, and put it into making cleaner energy/production technology available for free to 2nd World countries.
If the thoery would be correct, we wouldve already made the situation better. If the theory is incorrect, some money is wasted, but at least people in those countries have better living conditions.
Thats more use of the money than if the theory ist costly proven correct and way more use if it proves wrong..
|
On September 30 2013 21:14 freewareplayer wrote:
If we assume that Global Warming is mainly man- made, and we assume this would be proven beyond any doubt, what would that change?
Close to nothing.
Like hell states like China would just stop polluting, and why would they?
Actually, it's the United States that is the main obstacle to international treaties on reducing carbon emissions.
It's the United States where global warming denial has become an article of the faith on the Republican side.
|
On September 30 2013 07:01 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate. That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality. The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years. It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature. Arrogance and ignorance...what a combo.
I know it's a cliché to link to the Dunning-Kruger effect. But that is really what is happening here.
|
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
What a load of crap. I will give an hint, rich people are old, old people overall tend to consider global warming doesn't exist. There is a huge generational opposition in global warming, even in the US (one of the most skeptical country) the youth is vastly acknowledging global warming.
IQ has nothing to do with it. "Believe in them they are intelligent" LOL. And what, scientists are dumb ?
|
On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ?
A lot are tho.
Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
I'd love to see how you came by the idea that "a lot are tho".
Anyone who is out of touch with reality and unable to see the big picture can be considered dumb. However, to automatically assume that a lot of scientists are out of touch with reality and unable to see the big picture is insulting. I know quite a few scientists and engineers, and I assure you that they are as world-aware as anyone else - and maybe even more world-aware than quite a lot of other professions.
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards.
On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
|
On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:54 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol. You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape. And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning? Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon. Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything. Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol. "Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
Again with the imbecilic assumptions and pathetic attempts at insults. You are either willfully obtuse or just plain dumb, and I honestly don't care which. You honestly think more children is somehow a solution for people in rural China and India? Are you truly that benightedly stupid? Do you not understand the underlying causes of poverty at all? Do you not know that education, empowerment of women, specifically their reproductive cycles and lower birth rates in general are ALWAYS the key to social and economic progress? No, you don't, because you don't know anything, you are a random loudmouth who thinks the world revolves around his distorted sense of right and wrong. And I don't know what I'm talking about? Your tunnel vision is the diameter of a straw.
Yes, I think about the big picture, because it's the only one that matters. It's pure pragmatism, the only thing that actually works. But hey, you seem so comfortable up there on your high horse, wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensibilities and black and white world. You are a joke, and a bad one at that. Go away.
User was warned for this post
|
@squat
You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people?
Which ones?
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
So what bigger exists other than global warming? Someone in this thread said it ws just one of many problems facing humanity. While that is technically true, it is the one problem that will flat out kill us(and a bunch of other living things too) if we don't deal with it.
I really struggle to think of a bigger picture than an inhabitable planet. Other than deniers who cling to their precious 15 year argument, it really is not an issue of if anymore, merely of when. I dunno, I figured if there was one thing we could unite around, it would be this.
Which ones?
Obviously primarily people in the industrialized world, the per capita energy consumption is wildly imbalanced. But I suspect you already knew that, hence the question. Again, I can only be responsible for me. I doubt my laptop and vacuum cleaner are too much of a drain.
Still, look at how vitriolic people here get at even the suggestion that we may have to make some alterations to our lifestyles, particularly here in the west. There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the earth was put here for our convenience, a notion we will be disabused of in no uncertain terms.
|
On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
It simply happens to be true that having fewer kids is the surest and fastest way to relieving poverty.
Look at this chart and you see that the poorest parts of the world tend to have the highest fertility rates, and vice versa. As an example, the fertility rate of the United States is 2.05; the fertility rate of Niger is 7.19.
Why do they continue to have large families that they can't afford in the developing world? It's because contraception isn't as widespread and tradition has greater sway.
Science gave us effective contraception and pulled the rug from tradition. What science did for family planning was probably more important than even its other gifts like the creation of the smallpox vaccine and the invention of the transistor.
And yet here we are in a thread where half the posters would rather trust "rich people" than the consensus of the scientific community.
|
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right?
|
On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right?
Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along.
As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance.
Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming.
|
On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming.
Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem.
My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need.
And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations.
|
On October 01 2013 02:33 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming. Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem. My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need. And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations.
Not sure what the point was here. We need more smart people, yes. Though smart is a bit of a misnomer. Knowledgeable might be a better word. The problem is not lack of intelligence, it is lack of knowledge, i.e. ignorance.
The money invested is directly proportional to the amount of powerful people with a vested interest in solving an issue. With global warming, we pretty much need everyone on board, hence the difficulty of the problem.
|
On October 01 2013 02:40 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:33 Nachtwind wrote:On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming. Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem. My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need. And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations. Not sure what the point was here. We need more smart people, yes. Though smart is a bit of a misnomer. Knowledgeable might be a better word. The problem is not lack of intelligence, it is lack of knowledge, i.e. ignorance. The money invested is directly proportional to the amount of powerful people with a vested interest in solving an issue. With global warming, we pretty much need everyone on board, hence the difficulty of the problem.
When our people are ignorant already with the best educations in the world (aka western world) why do you think population regulation would solve that? Because you raise now more educated ignorant people?
Where does those ignorance in our western world come from?
And why do you think we now don´t have all powerhouse investors in the western world developing technologies left and right? Because we lack in population regulation systems?
|
In the west ignorance is a choice, anything you'll want to know is a google search away. Large fat cat investors don't tend to care much about science, except how they can profit from it. If anything, it's going to have to rely on government funding.
It's not a miracle solution, there are no miracle solutions. But as long as a large part of our species either ignores the problem or pretends it does not exist, we will get nowhere. It's a piece of the puzzle, nothing more.
|
In this thread and elsewhere we've seen appallingly low intellectual standards from the denialists.
Obviously the contest is uneven, and it will only be a matter of time before we win the war of ideas. Denialists will have the retards on Fox; we will have the clever and witty cartoonists. Their Youtube comments will be half-literate and nonsensical; ours will be eloquent.
Let's hope that by the time we win, it isn't too late to do something.
|
I don't really see how this changes anything. Looking at trends between 5-7 decades is not a very large sample (counting decades from the 1950's is hard).
|
On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter.
This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it.
In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because:
Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare.
This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans.
Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven.
Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me
TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead.
|
On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other.
On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise.
http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.html
Life is all about perspective.
|
On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead.
Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit
It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others.
Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling.
"Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees".
|
On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists
No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life.
All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong.
Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better.
Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare.
|
On October 01 2013 05:43 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life. All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong. Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better. Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare.
you are quite annoying because you sound just like a guy who lost an argument and is now saying 'yweah but you shuoldn't of been arguing in the first place'
Let me explain to you why the argument is happening - because most people agree with you and wish people like you would just stfu and stay out of serious conversation that has an intent of action.
To fight climate change - specifically man made climate change because if its man made presumably it can be effected in the opposite way - you need to get 2 things
1) Action from people - now action is easily blocked by contentious assholes who quite simply like to argue
2) MONEY - the only way to get money to act is to justify it ... again see the contentious assholes who are either a) argumentative people who cannot think but assume noise to the contrary is actually valid because they think it is b) People who have financial interest in perpetuating the harm and c) people who genuinley reached an incorrect conclusion because they didnt have the available facts.
The sad sad reality of the world is that group C is infinitesimally small. To combat group a) you need a ridiculous report of the scale of OP to hammer the point (at this point you realise that a) is actually a faith based argument so you should lump them with creationists and burn them in order to cleanse the gene pool. Group b) is more redeemable then group a) because you can simply give them opportunity to make money your way.
Why you need a report with 9200 analysis in it to simply show 'shitting in your own back yard is a bad idea' is beyond me. It is a sad sad reflection on the majority of the populations inability to police the population.
|
On October 01 2013 05:55 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:43 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life. All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong. Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better. Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare. you are quite annoying because you sound just like a guy who lost an argument and is now saying 'yweah but you shuoldn't of been arguing in the first place' Let me explain to you why the argument is happening - because most people agree with you and wish people like you would just stfu and stay out of serious conversation that has an intent of action. To fight climate change - specifically man made climate change because if its man made presumably it can be effected in the opposite way - you need to get 2 things 1) Action from people - now action is easily blocked by contentious assholes who quite simply like to argue 2) MONEY - the only way to get money to act is to justify it ... again see the contentious assholes who are either a) argumentative people who cannot think but assume noise to the contrary is actually valid because they think it is b) People who have financial interest in perpetuating the harm and c) people who genuinley reached an incorrect conclusion because they didnt have the available facts. The sad sad reality of the world is that group C is infinitesimally small. To combat group a) you need a ridiculous report of the scale of OP to hammer the point (at this point you realise that a) is actually a faith based argument so you should lump them with creationists and burn them in order to cleanse the gene pool. Group b) is more redeemable then group a) because you can simply give them opportunity to make money your way. Why you need a report with 9200 analysis in it to simply show 'shitting in your own back yard is a bad idea' is beyond me. It is a sad sad reflection on the majority of the populations inability to police the population.
Ok, you call me a bunch of stuff, then you say people agree with me but they want me to stftu? How does that even make sense.
You also completly ignored my points and talked past it, Then you even at least partially agree with me on your part C: If that group is so so small, that actually just strenghtens my point that further information campaigning wont change much.
Edit: Ironic taking about "Intent of Action". So many people believe in global man made warning, also many influental people. Get the people that care about it to act, instead of continously arguing with people whose opinion they wont change anyway.
|
On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees".
Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private.
"Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" was describing how instead of devoting years to develop and make your own iPhone, somehow find the money to establish a network to support it, you can go to a store and buy one. Saving years of your life, and freeing you to do thinks you are passionate about. You don't have to grow your own food to survive, because companies are organizing that part of your survival for you.
Call me the devils advocate, but you have to see the world in more colors then black and white. You can't clump all companies into this "greedy" stereotype. The main premise in business is to create value for people, not rob them blind.
I think the Geneva Convention made it quite clear that there is no difference between the entrepreneur and the hireling in the eyes of the world.
|
On October 01 2013 02:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant. It simply happens to be true that having fewer kids is the surest and fastest way to relieving poverty. Look at this chart and you see that the poorest parts of the world tend to have the highest fertility rates, and vice versa. As an example, the fertility rate of the United States is 2.05; the fertility rate of Niger is 7.19.
You see, that chart doesn't make sense. Take a look at China. Horrible colour picks aside (that's supposed to be 1-2 right? and horrible picks (so if a country has 1 child on average, is that 0-1 and 1-2? Either? Neither?), China has a 1 child policy so it will have that one colour. But the western parts (the poor parts) of China have lifted that restriction. Yet that list doesn't reflect that, only shows average for the country. 1.x for China in that list. Probably hasn't fully taken the 1 child policy into account, etc.
They got more children because kids have a high chance of dying, heck even teenagers or young adults do. It's hard manual work and you need many helping hands. That's why I wrote that they should be financially supported in the first place.. instead of some idiot claiming they should just have less children. :S When you struggle to survive on a daily basis you don't give a crap about global warming. And boy does poverty exist. I thought China was bad till I saw rural India. Haven't been to Africa and can only imagine how it's like in certain countries.
Geez the mods on this site are trigger happy for calling someone a clown. Hope that cheered up your day as much as it did mine.
|
On October 01 2013 06:12 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees". Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private. I never said some good things aren't accomplished in the private sector. My point was that every example you can give of bad things done by scientists are more than matched by corresponding examples for businesspeople.
Science is a methodology -- by far the best invented by our species -- for finding out the truth and discovering facts about the world.
Private enterprise is about making profit.
|
On October 01 2013 08:32 zdfgucker wrote:
You see, that chart doesn't make sense. Take a look at China. Horrible colour picks aside (that's supposed to be 1-2 right? and horrible picks (so if a country has 1 child on average, is that 0-1 and 1-2? Either? Neither?), China has a 1 child policy so it will have that one colour. But the western parts (the poor parts) of China have lifted that restriction. Yet that list doesn't reflect that, only shows average for the country. 1.x for China in that list. Probably hasn't fully taken the 1 child policy into account, etc. Pick up a book sometime. Fertility rate is obviously higher in poorer countries. Everybody knows it and you have to be profoundly ignorant to get the idea that it doesn't make sense.
If your theory is that the higher fertility rate is higher because morality rate is higher, the answer is you're simply wrong. Do it by household size and you find a similar result. Their families are larger, just as used to be the case in many Catholic families in Europe a few decades ago when they refused to use contraception. The father's wage was split between all the kids, and lo and behold, it led to poverty.
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective.
All of this generalizing is kind of silly. Obviously the scientists who are working on climate change are not the same people as those who made atomic bombs and deadly nerve gases, and in many of those cases it wasn't just the science but a powerful military interest and the promise that it would be used in defensive situations (or to combat evil countries).
So you can't lump all scientists together. The vast majority of them don't work on weapons of mass destruction, the vast majority of them just do data analysis of the climate and their job is to be as honest and scientifically rigorous as possible, and these are the results they came up with. They don't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by pro-environmental groups so they really have very little monetary incentive to lie (in contrast to the oil and gas lobby), and everything they put out is peer reviewed anyway unless you want to believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists. So its pretty dishonest to view scientists as people who just invent doomsday weapons and who should never be trusted, you pretty much trust them every day based on the myriad inventions you use, not to mention medical advances and vaccines, etc.
So as long as we get this good/evil fantastical divide between scientists and businessmen out of the way, revisit what Ghastly said. He's just pointing out that one is far more likely to be correct than the other considering their areas of expertise. I mean just think of any other area.
If you were about to have surgery, would you trust a surgeon who trained and studied at a top medical school or a businessman? If you're having some personal problems, do you go see a therapist or psychologist or do you see a businessman? Clearly some people are far more equipped, both in terms of their general intelligence and specific knowledge base, to deal with certain issues than others.
So now ask yourself the same question. If you want to know the state of the Earth's climate, and what's likely to happen in the future who do you ask? Physicists who trained for years researching climate science, or do you ask a businessman?? Please don't answer businessman lol
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective.
Indeed, no process or technology is inherently good or evil. However, the "ideology" of science at least purports to advance humanity's knowledge, while the "ideology" of business is explicit in its demand for shareholder profits above all else. If you're the CEO of a company, you are personally liable if you "breach your fiduciary duties", advancing humanity or ethics be-damned.
Now, in practice most business and business people are good. It's unfortunate that you chose the fortune 500 list because if you had to choose the good from the bad, the very large multi-national corporations seem to do the most campaign funding, propaganda, lobbying, corruption, pollution, fraud, loophole abuse, and on and on, while your average small to medium (heck even large) sized business has to play by all the rules.
|
On October 01 2013 06:12 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees". Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" was describing how instead of devoting years to develop and make your own iPhone, somehow find the money to establish a network to support it, you can go to a store and buy one. Saving years of your life, and freeing you to do thinks you are passionate about. You don't have to grow your own food to survive, because companies are organizing that part of your survival for you. Call me the devils advocate, but you have to see the world in more colors then black and white. You can't clump all companies into this "greedy" stereotype. The main premise in business is to create value for people, not rob them blind. I think the Geneva Convention made it quite clear that there is no difference between the entrepreneur and the hireling in the eyes of the world.
Greedy stereotype? It might have started as something good, but for all the good intentions in the world they still need food on the table and to do this they twist every fabric of their science to patent their discoveries and hinder human progress by introducing artificial scarcity into a market that shouldn't have any. Ever since the dawn of the personal computer and the ever inventiveness of silicon valley coupled with the warmachine that is the american government to back up their claims to monopoly on human invention we have done nothing but reinvent and reinvent the wheel. Each time a little different enough to get a new patent while also checking daily to see if anyone has anything remotely resembling this new patent so we can sue them so hard that the opposing company cant do much but disband or settle out of court thus wasting billions of intellectual capitol on what amounts to very little in the grander schemes of things.
Scientists and corporations both have ideals and you are both correct in believing in them, but to argue from those ideals is not doing any of you good service as the prospective people or conglomerates that you argue for have ditched their morals somewhere along the roadside.
It is not greedy to want to survive and use every means to do so, nor is it greed that gets scientists to put facts on the table slightly twisted to suit their own agenda, but it is selfish, and it will continue to be selfish. We are humans after all. Selfish self interest and discarded ideals are what is left of our much appreciated history. We threw the glory of war on the pyre during ww1. The glory of nationhood and idealism has been left as they are since ww2 (like rotting branches on the tree of life they are reserved for the people who care for them). In the same vein the glory of god is reserved for the people who care for it, just as the great bore of reality has become reserved for the people that care for it.
It is all a matter of individual perception whether the planet grows warmer or cooler. Just like it is all a matter of perception whether the economy is fucked or not (If you were a citizen in Greece or Spain then surely it would be considered royally fucked from your standpoint right?). Going by this view of reality distorting perception then both the scientists who proclaim, and the companies that deny or accept are both poor argumentative standpoints as you are neither scientist nor are you probably part of one such company. coupled with the common tendency for humans to parrot what comes best for our own view then arguing either side becomes flawed at its best.
This whole thing about how IQ somehow correlates to wealth which somehow correlates with climate denial is simply a numbers game that you both could do well to live without as you are both correct.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
apparently the truth is now a matter of what (quoting verbatim from other quality posters) "retards on fox" / "high income people" believe / don't believe
TL general, you never fail to disappoint!!
|
I haven't followed this video up at all, but it seems somewhat relevant whether it be correct or not, it's up to you.
+ Show Spoiler +
I find it extremely interesting.
|
that's the reason NASA is losing funding. they don't fully support this CO2 crap.
|
Holy shit at the first two pages rofl. I don't think I've seen such a concentrated thread injection of retarded posts by people who didn't read the study.
"uhhh no"
"scientists aren't smart"
These aren't arguments. Like common TL, we used to be better than this.
|
I don't know if this was mentioned (if so I didn't see it) but the full report has now been made available, for those who don't just want to read a summary.
|
This is the most recently bumped thread concerning climate change, so.... Figured I'd post this little set of FunFactz here rather than shit out an entire new thread:
PHILADELPHIA, December 20, 2013
A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uy3gNsU.png?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dgw9Uw8.png)
http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
Not terribly surprising. Thought it was funny that Koch + Exxon are wary of their intellectually embarrassing positions
|
On September 27 2013 22:56 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
Key Metrics Characterizing Anthropogenic Climate Change
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely. The total amount of anthropogenic emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases largely determines the warming in the 21st century. The global mean warming per 1000 PgC is very likely between 0.8°C–3°C.
This is the only part that sounds like bullshit to me, TBH. I've read plenty of literature from both the IPCC and dissenting climatologists, and as far as I can tell the 3°C sensitivity figure is a fairly dramatic exaggeration (or miscalculation, or outright lie depending on what you ascribe the motive to); in fact, I'd be surprised if the net feedback effect is positive at all.
That said, people who deny any man-made warming whatsoever are either ignorant, misinformed or liars; of this we should all agree by now.
|
With the dominance of cars and the numerous industries we have in developped countries you can be sure we polute more (emit more green house gases) than before (1800-1950) in developped countries.
If you add to that the other developping countries like China or India which don't give two shits about nature preservation, it's certain that we polute more today than during the first and second industrial revolution (1800-1914).
Yes you can argue that we ain't sure that humans are the primary causes of global warming, so we shouldn't believe this theory but then you are just being a stupid doubter, everything in Science is based on suppositions and the theory of pole changes seem way less solid and extemely suspicious (if we follow that theory, we should be in a period of constant change of polarity that should last between 1000-10k yrs, and sorry but my compass still works) in comparison to studies on human role in the state of the planet.
To me this climate change denial is the same as the genocides denial, creationism, you can't argue with people about that because even if everything tends to prove that they are wrong, they have the support of some pseudo science and history stuides. Studies that are often funded by people who want to keep their interests (be it political, influencial or commercial).
Aside from that the numbers of the supposed increase in temperature seem a little high and the post about the fundings from FallDownMarigold totally prove my point: these studies were funded by these industrials and indivuduals who have interests in not changing anything in their customs, they don't give two shit about the planet so trusting studies made by them is completely retarded.
|
On December 25 2013 02:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:This is the most recently bumped thread concerning climate change, so.... Figured I'd post this little set of FunFactz here rather than shit out an entire new thread: Show nested quote +
PHILADELPHIA, December 20, 2013
A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
[Big-ass images about the funding of "denial".]http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/Not terribly surprising. Thought it was funny that Koch + Exxon are wary of their intellectually embarrassing positions
Right-wingers fund global warming denial, and Left-wingers fund global warming alarmism. What else is new?
All of this hubbub about humans affecting global warming is for a political purpose. Right-wingers want to leave us alone in the economy and control what we do in the bedroom, and Left-wingers want to leave us alone in the bedroom and control what we do in the economy.
That's what all of this is implying. That human economic action needs to be restrained in order to "save the planet". But you know what the real solution is?
Leave the market free so creative/inventive people can come up with solutions to whatever global changes we may or may not be facing. What's the solution to polution, you may ask? Individual rights. Primarily your right to life and right to property. If someone poisons your land, water, or your body, take them to court. That's the free-market solution to pollution.
If green energy is so great, let it compete on the free market. Get both left-wing and right-wing political influence out of the market so that the best man truly wins. Then innovation can happen and things can change for the better. We humans have come this far. Americans from the shirts on our backs to the industrial revolution to the sprawling, technologically advanced society we have today, thanks to Capitalism. Just let that work and you'll see whatever innovations we need.
|
On December 27 2013 18:04 Amaroq64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:This is the most recently bumped thread concerning climate change, so.... Figured I'd post this little set of FunFactz here rather than shit out an entire new thread:
PHILADELPHIA, December 20, 2013
A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
[Big-ass images about the funding of "denial".]http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/Not terribly surprising. Thought it was funny that Koch + Exxon are wary of their intellectually embarrassing positions Right-wingers fund global warming denial, and Left-wingers fund global warming alarmism. What else is new? All of this hubbub about humans affecting global warming is for a political purpose. Right-wingers want to leave us alone in the economy and control what we do in the bedroom, and Left-wingers want to leave us alone in the bedroom and control what we do in the economy. That's what all of this is implying. That human economic action needs to be restrained in order to "save the planet". But you know what the real solution is? Leave the market free so creative/inventive people can come up with solutions to whatever global changes we may or may not be facing. What's the solution to polution, you may ask? Individual rights. Primarily your right to life and right to property. If someone poisons your land, water, or your body, take them to court. That's the free-market solution to pollution. If green energy is so great, let it compete on the free market. Get both left-wing and right-wing political influence out of the market so that the best man truly wins. Then innovation can happen and things can change for the better. We humans have come this far. Americans from the shirts on our backs to the industrial revolution to the sprawling, technologically advanced society we have today, thanks to Capitalism. Just let that work and you'll see whatever innovations we need.
10/10 troll post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yXqPawV.jpg)
