Want to see how easily you could be squished like a cockroach?

[lukep]

So if global overpopulation is the root of human caused environmental impacts, attempting to fix said environmental issues is just kicking that can down the road akin to current economic and political situations?

It's more than overpopulation, of course. There is a CO2 feedback loop. Pretty much all professional climate scientists agree that it's this feedback loop that man has helped create that is raising the earth's mean temperature. (98% of which is stored in the ocean.)

All it takes to "fix that situation" is to stop putting more carbon into the system, feuling that feedback loop. -Earth will scrub the rest back to normal, as it has for millions of years.

The earth will be fine. Maybe not fine for human life but fine. Nature gonna nature.

I'm not concerned about the planet itself; just my comfort on it.

Newsflash, Luke.

The climate's always changing.

Well aren't we picky? Perhaps I should have said "THIS climate change" then.

Everyone gets money from somewhere and money always brings an agenda, all sides included. I'm not dismissing anything outright, I'm calling bs for what it is because the warming crowd's shit stinks just like everyone else's.

Let's examine that claim.

On one side, you have 97+ percent of all professional climate scientists. This is fact, you can tell by the fact that their names are on published & peer-reviewed Pro-AGW research papers.

On the other side, you have the remaining 2+ percent of climate scientists... However a very large percentage of that 2+% have been shown to have ties to the Oil lobby.

Since ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE has an opinion on the matter that should be considered, simply because they aren't educated on the very subject that we're discussing here, I fail to see why the shit from the "warming crowd" is just as stinky as those 2%ers.

Here man if you really feel like finding sources refuting each of these then go for it.

Why would ANYONE want to review a bunch of journalists' opinions??? That would be a colossal waste of time, as was your education on this subject.

I don't know why global warming proponents piss me off so much but it makes my fucking blood boil. I'll see myself out.

Oh it's not anger bro; it's obviously the earth's temperature rising doing that to your blood.

I wonder when climate change will be used as a reason to start a war...

"They pollute too much"
or even worse
"They have too many people living there"

The former will be a dark day indeed... But of course the consequences of sea level rise would more than dwarf those #s of dead.
The latter doesn't need AGW as an excuse... Happens all the damn time.

 

[charlesmartel]

Of course it does matter... Remember I did say the word "almost" in there...

However for the sake of this thread, otherwise intelligent people like Guerilla, Grindstone and UG seem to think it's just a natural pattern that will correct itself, going back down again to normal someday soon. They aren't even arguing if it's man-made; they're arguing that it exists at all.

It clearly does. Anyone who argues this is ignorant of mountains of facts that fewer and fewer scientists refute each year... And ZERO reputable climate scientists refute at all.

Man-made global warming promoters are simply using bad science as a way to promote their anti-industrialization, anti-capitalist ideas. The consensus they speak of only exists in their propaganda.

See this:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

 

[lukep]

Man-made global warming promoters are simply using bad science as a way to promote their anti-industrialization, anti-capitalist ideas. The consensus they speak of only exists in their propaganda.

See this:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

Deniers are the ones using the bad science... But of course it is obvious that politicians are promoting anti-capitalist ideas in the name of fighting AGW.

Your forbes article is interesting, but very, very biased. The author writes Pro-Oil energy peices along with space colonization pieces for Forbes... He isn't even a climatologist.

In fact, he fully admits in his bio there that he's written a Denier book:

I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax

So he's pushing an AGW-denial book on Forbes.com. If that isn't an author to avoid on this subject I don't know who is.

Meanwhile, since I respect your opinion, I gave it a read over and sadly I'm seeing the old claims that have been well-debunked about the "31,000 scientists signing the petition" - Which you can find the debunking to here.

The 97% of Climate Scientists I referred to above are calculated by the stance given in Published papers, not some silly 2-question survey like Mr. Bell suggests.

Yes, this is frustrating for us Libertarians because all of the politicians that have found AGW to be another big, scary threat to use against us. To a politician like Obomba, I have no doubt that the word AGW makes him drool and rub his hands together scheming to extract more power from us with.

Sadly, those parasites are using a real concern this time, instead of a fake concern like usual... Either way it's the same thing to them, however... Just a tool to use against us.

 

[Moxie]

I'm suggesting that my refrigerator is more qualified to discuss climate science than the authors of that website.

Who would be qualified then, random people on message boards, or regular writers for the Telegraph or Daily Mail? Technically speaking, the quality or lack thereof of a source on its own doesn't make anything correct or incorrect. Each article, blog post or whatever can be looked at as its own entity.

increased co2 production + plants = increased planetary oxygen.

Plants need other things like water though, and increased CO2 can contribute to droughts.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo]The CO2 is Plant Food Crock - YouTube[/ame]

Here man if you really feel like finding sources refuting each of these then go for it.

I'll look at the first one for fun..

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet - Washington Times

Lets cut out the middle men and go straight to the actual press release :

Research | Research news | How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

...the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However...

...the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

...the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide

I don't know why global warming proponents piss me off so much but it makes my fucking blood boil.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and others tried to spin the above even further, saying it meant that the sun was the sole cause of global warming. There's plenty of incidents like this where "skeptics" and "conservative" media blatantly misrepresent things. So maybe "proponents" have done stuff that might make people be pissed off, but its not like they hold a monopoly in that area.


tl;dr :

 

[Grindstone]

All it takes to "fix that situation" is to stop putting more carbon into the system, feuling that feedback loop.

So we cease all oil and gas production/consumption, scrap cars for bicycles, quit heating our homes with natural gas and wood and instead use <insert utopian idolatry that has no practical application here>, fuck...need to remove all the non hydro and nuclear power generating plants as well (sorry, Northeast US, welcome to rolling brownouts), queue government rationing of power consumption, hello rising costs...sounds like an excellent solution...for pounding the final nail in the coffin of the US economy.

That wouldn't fit any anti-capitalist agenda that may or may not be shared by the Subversive In Chief in his "green energy" mission. Luke, you of all people jumping on the "we can fix global warming" bandwagon surprises the shit out of me.

-Earth will scrub the rest back to normal, as it has for millions of years.

Exactly. When we're all dead.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

All it takes to "fix that situation" is to stop putting more carbon into the system, feuling that feedback loop. -Earth will scrub the rest back to normal, as it has for millions of years.

Yes, we should revert to caveman days so that instead of the earth warming by 3 degrees over the next 500 years, it only warms by the 2.5 degrees that it naturally would over the next 500 years anyways.

On one side, you have 97+ percent of all professional climate scientists. This is fact, you can tell by the fact that their names are on published & peer-reviewed Pro-AGW research papers.

On the other side, you have the remaining 2+ percent of climate scientists... However a very large percentage of that 2+% have been shown to have ties to the Oil lobby.

Both sides get funding from an agenda driven source. Grant money funds these scientists in the same way that oil money funds others. One side isn't more altruistic than the other, don't kid yourself.

 

[MSTeacher]

tl;dr :

I would agree with this, that both sides are out to lunch, imo the warming crowd laughably so, but regardless I don't understand: if that's so why do you argue for mmgw? Not trying to be preachy but if you're arguing for it and you don't say otherwise, people are going to associate you with the proposed solutions to fix the so-called problem that you're arguing to support and probably conclude that you're a Malthusian reactionary. You do realize that the most likely 'solution' to this 'problem' is cap and trade, deindustrialization, speculation, and a lowering of the mean standard of living?

 

[rusvik]

I would agree with this, that both sides are out to lunch, imo the warming crowd laughably so, but regardless I don't understand: if that's so why do you argue for mmgw? Not trying to be preachy but if you're arguing for it and you don't say otherwise, people are going to associate you with the proposed solutions to fix the so-called problem that you're arguing to support and probably conclude that you're a Malthusian reactionary. You do realize that the most likely 'solution' to this 'problem' is cap and trade, deindustrialization, speculation, and a lowering of the mean standard of living?

Global warming is just another rationalization of liberals afraid of facing the big bad world. They're scared and they want the gubernment to protect them. Several psyciatrists and psycologists have speculated that liberalism is a mental disorder most likely stemming from abandonment trauma from childhood or being overly coddled and protected by mommy. In that regard, the 'industry' and capitalism becomes a metaphor for patriarchal power, which single mommy has likely spent a great deal badmouthing.

I wish liberals would just grow some balls.

 

[lukep]

So we cease all oil and gas production/consumption, scrap cars for bicycles, quit heating our homes with natural gas and wood and instead use <insert utopian idolatry that has no practical application here>, fuck...need to remove all the non hydro and nuclear power generating plants as well (sorry, Northeast US, welcome to rolling brownouts), queue government rationing of power consumption, hello rising costs...sounds like an excellent solution...for pounding the final nail in the coffin of the US economy.

Grind, bro, you are extremely out of touch.

Here's some things that have been happening on your planet in the last year:

Spain now PRIMARILY powered by Wind Energy

Land Requirements for full-planet PV Energy needs are Insignificant - WWF

German Town acheives 100% Energy Independance

Wind surpasses Nuclear in China

Ontario will be the first N American Jurisdiction to eliminate Coal power

101 Gigawatts is the Earth's new PV Energy output, up 30 GW in 2012

Stop seeing every problem in black & white. There are other solutions, and they aren't as impractical as they were a few years ago.

That wouldn't fit any anti-capitalist agenda that may or may not be shared by the Subversive In Chief in his "green energy" mission. Luke, you of all people jumping on the "we can fix global warming" bandwagon surprises the shit out of me.

Yeah, well, the truth really is sometimes inconvenient.

I have little respect for people when they choose to follow their own dogmatic beliefs over obvious truths in the way of them.

Both sides get funding from an agenda driven source. Grant money funds these scientists in the same way that oil money funds others. One side isn't more altruistic than the other, don't kid yourself.

So the side full of properly-trained scientists that is trying to save us from a warmer world isn't any more altruistic at all than the side who works for the oil and tobacco companies trying to do nothing at all but stop the first group?

Please put your head on straight and try again.

I don't understand: if that's so why do you argue for mmgw? Not trying to be preachy but if you're arguing for it and you don't say otherwise, people are going to associate you with the proposed solutions to fix the so-called problem that you're arguing to support and probably conclude that you're a Malthusian reactionary.

Surely you've learned this about me by now; I don't give a shit what people associate me with (tin foil hats anyone?) I only try to preach what's MORAL and JUST.

Destroying the State and stopping AGW are the two biggest fights in not only our lifetimes, but the lifetimes of the next 2-5 generations as well.

You do realize that the most likely 'solution' to this 'problem' is cap and trade, deindustrialization, speculation, and a lowering of the mean standard of living?

It's only likely because a parasitical class of evildoers is in control, and we should have them removed with predjudice first before we even try to get anything else done.

...Since that's not going to happen soon though, I at least would hope we can all agree on the fact that this AGW problem shouldn't be forgotten about totally. If anything, it's a ticking clock that should be used to expediate the bigger problem in the way.

Global warming is just another rationalization of liberals afraid of facing the big bad world....
I wish liberals would just grow some balls.

I don't talk to many liberals; only on WF in fact, and usually on the other side of the arguments we have.

You make more assumptions about people in your argument than liberals themselves do. I'll say it again; I have little respect for people when they choose to follow their own dogmatic beliefs over obvious truths in the way of them. That's why I spread the word of AGW, but I don't want my congressman to do shit about it... That's for private enterprise to do, and by the links I've given above, this isn't even a pipe dream in our corrupted world of today.

 

[Grindstone]

101 Gigawatts is the Earth's new PV Energy output, up 30 GW in 2012

1/150th of human consumption (best data I can find, correct me if you have better). At 30 GW year, solar could provide all the human energy (if we capped consumption at 2012 levels) needs (15 terrawatts, again, feel free to add your own data) in just a short 500 years. Although the probable natural cooling trend we'll be in by then will bring with it an increased cloud cover and further distance from the sun, negating some unknown percentage of solar generated power. So it might take 550-600 years. Or as few as 400.

You can throw in the 282 GW of wind powered production and cut those estimates down to 125-200 years, but I for one would regard the info coming out of China regarding their wind power generation on par with their falsely inflated economic data, especially considering the constant issues we've had with wind turbines stateside. My cousin climbs them and does maintenance (invest in those companies bros, they can't keep up and if Obama keeps subsidizing the industry, they'll only keep growing) on wind farms in California, the list of shit that goes wrong with them is impressive but since I heard you like sources, I put some sources in your sources...Ok, that first one is probably a fucking nutjob but I liked his beard, leaving it.

Even if the China data is legit, and we shoot for a number that eliminates "warming because of human production", (say 50%?), we're still almost a century out from achieving that (again, in a capped energy consumption model, ie not reality considering population expansion).

Think about the issues facing the human race in 1913 and how well we prepared to envision 2013 and it's potential issues back then. And then consider the difference in exponential expansion of the rate of technological advancements between then and now. Even the most forward thinkers would be lying if they claimed to have any clue about what 2113 holds.

My math says your "fix" is out of touch with reality, bro.

 

[MSTeacher]

Spain now PRIMARILY powered by Wind Energy - You're holding Spain up as a model for current policy?

German Town acheives 100% Energy Independance a hundred and fifty people, now that is progress to set policy on

Wind surpasses Nuclear in China That's sweet since China produces a tenth the atomic energy we do and is currently building its energy production from scratch not converting it.

101 Gigawatts is the Earth's new PV Energy output, up 30 GW in 2012 TIL the world is producing as much in pv as the us alone does in atomic.

So the side full of properly-trained scientists that is trying to save us from a warmer world

It's only likely because a parasitical class of evildoers is in control, and we should have them removed with predjudice first before we even try to get anything else done.

Dude get a grip. Your precious stable of properly trained scientists are paid by the very parasites you identify as the purveyors of malfeasant solutions to the socalled problem. The mmgw crowd's largest single funding source is government money. It's billions and billions and billions to the proponents and peanuts to the skeptics. And the proponents still can't fake the data without getting caught.

That's for private enterprise to do, and by the links I've given above, this isn't even a pipe dream in our corrupted world of today.

You just cited examples of a country on the bottom rung of modern industrial capacity, a country known for heavily subsidizing solar, and a Communist dictatorship where government controls all industry. wtf.

AGW problem shouldn't be forgotten about totally. If anything, it's a ticking clock that should be used to expediate the bigger problem in the way.

Yeah maybe but guess what bro, solar and wind aren't viable right now and they won't be viable until their ROI outpaces existing tech. And there's a lot more than a bureaucratic government blocking that. You're all mixed up, don't know what to do next thing you turn around and find that person is you thought a freak might be the thing but you know this will pass so just get off of your ass.

brb starting every motor I own at the same time for no reason

 

[Jcraig83]

I chimed in on another thread like this.

The GW deniers arguments basically boil down to

A. Government conspiracy.

From : Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

So apparently 97% of US and international climatologists are on the take and in on a worldwide global conspiracy.

B. Natural Causes

They fail to mention exactly WHAT natural phenomenon is causing the earth to warm.

The plain facts are the earth is warming, and human emission of greenhouse gases are the primary factor.

From : Climate Change: Key Indicators

Of course there is the predictable, "lol do you want to go back to the stone age" argument, which doesn't address the fact the earth is warming at all.

There are plenty of technologies out there that could easily replace our current energy paradigm.

Perfect example is Liquid Flouride Salt Reactors. Nuke power without danger of meltdown and near infinite supply of fuel.

www.energyfromthorium.com

Just because the solutions are difficult doesn't change the fact that it's happening.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

 

[rusvik]

Any global warming debate would make for an excellent grad student study in statistical manipulation.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

I have to say, it's still a little dumbfounding there's so many critics of global warming. It's now at the point where you don't even need to look at any data to see that something pretty fucked up is happening with our weather patterns. Every year we're breaking records via temperature, severity and frequency of natural disasters, etc.

Then when 97%+ of the world's scientific community comes together and says it's global warming, and humans have contributed to it, then I have to say, I'm going to have to side with what they say.

 

[Moxie]

I would agree with this, that both sides are out to lunch,

What I meant to suggest was that certain people on both sides are probably out to lunch.

imo the warming crowd laughably so, but regardless I don't understand: if that's so why do you argue for mmgw?

Why have you argued that GMO crops are dangerous? But see, when you link to stuff pointing in that direction, I don't necessarily view you as "arguing", but rather pointing out that they might be a potential danger and people might want to look into why some people feel that way.

Forgetting about whether they are right or not, I don't think it is a stretch to say that global warming proponents typically have a greater foundational level of science understanding, and this sometimes gets reflected on message boards and in the stuff people link to. I've seen numerous "science" articles on the Daily Mail, for example, where some 8th graders could quickly spot issues in the first paragraph.

Debating about the significance of Babe Ruth's stats is one topic, and debating about whether or not his stats were artificially inflated could be a subtopic. From my view, what happens sometimes in global warming discussions could be akin to people on one or both sides confusing runs with runs batted in. I don't have a pet peeve with people disagreeing, but may have one with when people don't seem to grasp why it is that the other person disagrees with them (or something like that.) It can be hard to try clarify anything science related without using actual science sources, but the mere act of doing that can be perceived as arguing.

Not trying to be preachy but if you're arguing for it and you don't say otherwise, people are going to associate you with the proposed solutions to fix the so-called problem that you're arguing to support and probably conclude that you're a Malthusian reactionary. You do realize that the most likely 'solution' to this 'problem' is cap and trade, deindustrialization, speculation, and a lowering of the mean standard of living?

This is a hasty generalization, in other words jumping to conclusions, and doing this can sometimes ruin otherwise productive (lol) discourse. This can be done with nearly any topic.

Linking to anti-GMO articles could be interpreted as saying the government should send farmers who use them to prison. Pointing out things about Lance Armstrong could be viewed as support for the government to regulate what people put in their bodies.

 

[Moxie]

Global warming is just another rationalization of liberals afraid of facing the big bad world. They're scared and they want the gubernment to protect them. Several psyciatrists and psycologists have speculated that liberalism is a mental disorder most likely stemming from abandonment trauma from childhood or being overly coddled and protected by mommy. In that regard, the 'industry' and capitalism becomes a metaphor for patriarchal power, which single mommy has likely spent a great deal badmouthing.

I wish liberals would just grow some balls.

Thermometers have no political bias.

Reagan and Bush I introduced cap and trade related regulations.

The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1800s by a guy born in the 1700s. Men had bigger balls back then, I'm told.

There are plenty of studies linking "conservatives" with cognitive dissonance and other such mental things.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Can one of you people please explain to me why you would expect global temperatures to remain constant, when they have never remained constant at any time in history? Temperatures go up and temperatures go down. Hummers and Escalades aren't what brought us out of the ice age - earths gonna earth. The planet has self-corrected for billions of years and it is going to continue to self-correct. Meanwhile, mother nature is lolling at your pitiful attempts to control it.

 

[Grindstone]

Meanwhile, mother nature is lolling at your pitiful attempts to control it.

It really is hubris to think we can.

 

[Jcraig83]

Can one of you people please explain to me why you would expect global temperatures to remain constant, when they have never remained constant at any time in history? Temperatures go up and temperatures go down. Hummers and Escalades aren't what brought us out of the ice age - earths gonna earth. The planet has self-corrected for billions of years and it is going to continue to self-correct. Meanwhile, mother nature is lolling at your pitiful attempts to control it.

Can you people please explain where ANY of us said that global temperatures should remain constant?

What part of the earth is warming, verified by mountains of data (see above charts), and the primary driver is human greenhouse gas emissions, don't you understand?

The earth doesn't "magically" change temperature. There is always a reason, and right now, it's human beings. It's not solar (solar output has remained steady while temperatures have increased) it's not volcanic, it's human.

There are solutions right now, that could easily reduce our emissions. It's not just solar or wind anymore. Like I pointed out in my post above LFTRs are tech, available RIGHT NOW, that could solve a lot of our problems.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Can you people please explain where ANY of us said that global temperatures should remain constant?

You guys are bitching about the temperatures going up ever so slightly, which means you must expect that temperatures should not go up (ie remain constant). Or...are you saying it can go up as long as it's the fault of volcanic activity or solar flares, but not if it's caused by industry?

What part of the earth is warming, verified by mountains of data (see above charts), and the primary driver is human greenhouse gas emissions, don't you understand?

Well it's hard to believe that temperatures have fluctuated for billions of years without humans, but now that humans are here the fluctuations are primarily the fault of emissions. I understand a lot of scientists say they believe that to be the biggest factor, but "scientists now believe" is a phrase I have read too many times in my life to think they're always correct. And when billions of dollars in grant money are at stake, I have to remain a little skeptical, especially since temperatures have always fluctuated without any help from us. Entire industries are built around climate change being a solvable problem, and like any industry experts will do what they have to do to stay in business.

The earth doesn't "magically" change temperature. There is always a reason, and right now, it's human beings.

So every other time it was something else, and the earth recovered just fine, but now you think it's humans so...we're fucked?