[zombiejimmorrison]

Even if global warming is true, there's no way in hell I'll trust governments to do a good job of fixing the problem. The fact that they start wars, consume vast amounts of resources and damage the environment with bombs is enough for me to see that they don't give a fuck about the environment.

Rampant consumerism thanks to our ever inflating dollars, there's a whole systemic problem that needs to be addressed or else we'll just be giving them more money to fuck us over.

They've spent billion's already on alternative energies, we haven't come close to fixing the problem. The only good alternative to oil, is nuclear energy and the left don't want to hear about it because it might actually work. It doesn't cause cO2 emissions and we've got enough to last for 20,000+ years. The waste might be a problem but we can just throw it underground in some desert.

[kosko]

(02-18-2015 08:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I've heard the arguments of the deniers. It's in general just pretty weak shit. It's like listening to feminists screaming that there's no difference between men and women when science overwhelmingly shows the contrary. But no matter what they are just going to keep believing it regardless.

Many of these deniers when scratch the surface are just hired shills for oil companies.

You claim up above that some stations inaccurately recorded temperatures. What about the ocean temps? Those are all faked too I guess?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/c...matechange

The 97% figure sounds legit to me. How many peer-reviewed studies are coming from the anti-global warming side vs the opposite? Occam's razor makes this about as slam dunk as it's going to get.

You basically hinted at the answer. There is some bogus idea that some how Peer-review signifies truth and reason when it is essentially a means of rigid and constricted censorship. If you have a establishment of hacks who have buttered their bread with faulty Climate Science then how could any of them collectively agree to put forward papers to challenge their own complex and system?

This is the thing as noted above in 2015 you can't take serious anything that is being pushed by all realms of the establishment base. They have a loosing record in being truthful and have no had the peoples general interest for decades.

You compare deniers logic to feminists, yet its the same institutional powers who fund and promote feminism, climate change, and every other destructive mold of thinking.

[Only One Man]

(02-18-2015 11:34 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

The only good alternative to oil, is nuclear energy and the left don't want to hear about it because it might actually work. It doesn't cause cO2 emissions and we've got enough to last for 20,000+ years. The waste might be a problem but we can just throw it underground in some desert.

This is absolutely true. Nuclear is ridiculously under-utilized. The left doesn't really want to fix the fossil fuel problem because then they lose a gigantic issue just like the right doesn't want to stop immigration for the same reason.

[Aliblahba]

The winner to the race to the bottom will be hard to call because the sun will have ran out of batteries, and no one will be able to see the finish line. What a cryin' shame.

[zombiejimmorrison]

(02-18-2015 11:47 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

This is absolutely true. Nuclear is ridiculously under-utilized. The left doesn't really want to fix the fossil fuel problem because then they lose a gigantic issue just like the right doesn't want to stop immigration for the same reason.

The oil barons, politicians and war profiteers are also hoping it stays that way. There's a lot of money and power in oil. That's why I find it hard to believe that they need more money from the working people to fund their "programs".


This article show's how nuclear could be a real alternative to oil but they're not really looking into it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/18690...and-planes

"Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel power, it generates more power than fossil power (i.e. it goes faster) while weighing significantly less, and you can go years without ever having to refuel a nuclear vehicle"

[komatiite]

(02-18-2015 03:42 PM)Guitarman Wrote:  

"So the earth's temp is rising despite a weak Solar Cycle?"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no...-8-months/

Just wanted to point out to anyone the great website Guitarman posted here. Watts Up With That is the definitive source for the anti-global warming writing. I read it every day. He echoes the same points most people here have been making, that it's arrogant to believe mankind can change the course of the planet with our puny emissions contributions. Look up the Siberian Trap geological event that marks the boundary of the Permian and the Triassic. THAT is the sort of event that causes global catastrophe- 2.5 million km^2 of basaltic floods. I really don't think the oil industry is going to wipe out society any time soon, the Earth will take care of that in due time.

Speaking of the oil industry, it's our best bet for lower emissions. I would LOVE to switch to Solar and Wind power tomorrow, but there is a bit of a problem with those two sources...



This doesn't even show the impact that rare earth mining has.

[komatiite]

(02-19-2015 12:22 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 11:47 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

This is absolutely true. Nuclear is ridiculously under-utilized. The left doesn't really want to fix the fossil fuel problem because then they lose a gigantic issue just like the right doesn't want to stop immigration for the same reason.

The oil barons, politicians and war profiteers are also hoping it stays that way. There's a lot of money and power in oil. That's why I find it hard to believe that they need more money from the working people to fund their "programs".


This article show's how nuclear could be a real alternative to oil but they're not really looking into it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/18690...and-planes

"Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel power, it generates more power than fossil power (i.e. it goes faster) while weighing significantly less, and you can go years without ever having to refuel a nuclear vehicle"

I fully agree. Mainly because it's such a strategic resource for Canada, we have the best high grade uranium on Earth in Northern Saskatchewan. Weird how they won't try it along passive geological margins to start (probably good to avoid high risk earthquake zones along the Pacific after Fukushima), like the Atlantic Coast or higher population zones in Europe. I guess since the natural gas and coal infrastructure is in place?

[kmhour]

(02-18-2015 04:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative?

Does anyone find it peculiar that every single person who dogmatically adheres to climate change doctrine with an eerily religious fervor ("the science is settled! nobody ask any questions!") and believes the problem can be solved by instituting broad swaths of new taxes and wealth transfer is coincidentally a liberal?

[Vigo_the_Carpathian]

While the climate may be changing, I have little doubt that humans have little to do with it. For a few reasons:

1) Measurement: Most of the civilized world that's been collecting measurements for over a hundred years is in the northern hemisphere, far away from the equator. While the accuracy of their measurements from way back when with questionable mercury thermometers is dubious, at best, we don't even have those measurements from a lot of third-world places over the past century, let alone "250 years in the past." Where are most of the third world shitholes located? Near the equator, where it's hot. Hell, a lot of those places still don't have much contact with the outside world at all--we're supposed to believe that 30 years ago, they were calling in temperature readings every day from Rwanda?

As more accurate data comes in from those places, there's a high likelihood that it'll cause the average temperature to skew upward. Especially if you have scientists fudging data to make those estimates cooler on the back end. Hence the "warming" trend we're seeing now.

Of course, I'm sure some of these scientists have a "proven" method to test soil, trees, rocks, etc. to determine how hot it was back in the day. If geology is anything like archaeology (which I studied fairly extensively in college), testing rock strata consists of a lot of guesswork based on a lot of contextual information. If they're testing trees for excess growth in rings because of CO2, that seems like a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? I have yet to see a methodology that convincingly provides "accurate" measurements over a time span that we can't possibly know.

2) The Sun. I've long thought that the sun has far more of an impact on temperatures than anything that humans (or even the earth, through volcanic eruptions) can. It just makes sense; if you use the "goldilocks zone" hypothesis, for where a habitable planet can be in a solar system, then a 10% increase or decrease in solar output would have far greater ramifications for a planet anywhere in that "goldilocks zone" than whatever's happening on that planet. As an astute commenter mentioned, we have a 60 degree temperature shift based almost entirely off of which way the Earth's axis is tilted EVERY YEAR! Not to mention that the Earth wobbles on its axis a bit from year-to-year--do these studies (and pretty graphs) take that into account?

3) The incentives for global warming researchers. There are plenty of reasons for a "global warming scientist" to graze with the herd. Even apart from funding, modern science is set up in a way to confirm and expand what's already been discovered, especially when that subject matter confirms the liberal agenda at work in the media. Professional accolades, not being shunned, being "on the right side of history" (even if this is an occasion where that's not the case) are huge drivers of these largely introverted scientists's lives. They've been in school for a long time, and crave validation, from their peers, their families, strangers, whomever. It's a lot easier to be the 996th paper fudging numbers to "prove" global warming to deafening applause than to be one of the lonely remainder left to defend their data above the deafening din of SJWs and the like.

4) Even IF humans have something to do with global warming, it's far more likely that advances in technology are going to save us from whatever temperature fluctuations exist than by expecting half the world's population to simply give up the comforts to which they've become accustomed. I assume most guys around here have read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, but if not, I can't recommend it highly enough. He does a basic cost-benefit analysis, and determines that any kind of broad-based emission reduction legislation, or cap-and-trade, will ultimately have a minimal impact on any greenhouse effect that may exist. We need to pump money into technology to make the advances needed to correct any temperature crises that ultimately arise down the road.

Now, is this to say that I support pollution? Hardly. Pollution sucks--there were 28% more asthma cases in 2011 than in 2001. That's 25 million people in 2011. Unfortunately, it seems like black inner city kids were most at risk.

Source: http://www.healthline.com/health-news/ch...ise-110813

Unfortunately, diesel fumes seem to be one of the primary culprits of the rise in asthma cases across the country (& the world):

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/bl...fumes.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...blems.html

That brings me to my biggest point: we're all against pollution, right? I mean, I don't like the fact that my car belches out CO2 and other crap. I don't think it's a critical problem, but "them's the breaks."

Obviously, a lot of people agree with me. Otherwise, SUVs, pickups, and other high-emissions cars would not be sold. There would be an army of Priuses on the nation's highways.

But getting back to the important point, in a way that any game-user can appreciate:

Why not reframe "global warming" as a "public health" issue?

I mean, I think the 8% or so of the population that suffers from asthma has enough family, friends, and overall reach to make this an issue. Not to mention the communities affected by coal ash and the like. Let's make reducing emissions something that everyone who cares for another human life can get behind. If you know someone with asthma, you know that life can be pretty shitty for them at times. Why should they suffer when we're RIGHT on the cusp of technology that would allow them to breath (mostly) clean air year-round?

If that was the case, I'd absolutely be more willing to trade my car in for a cleaner, newer model. Preventing the suffering of others is a far more convincing motivator than some rather questionable research dependent on literally millions of variables.

Of course, liberals will decry this. They HAVE to be right about THEIR ISSUE, no matter what. It'll be a cold day in hell before I see a liberal hop on board with this, simply because in A DECADE AND A HALF, we've gotten to a point where "compromise" might as well mean "fuck your mother" in American politics.

Whatever. F it.

Vigo

[Foolsgo1d]

(02-18-2015 06:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 06:00 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Anyone who thinks mankind has a serious impact upon this ball of rock we inhabit need to take in a few facts.

Stars light years away can have an impact on our planet. The one in our solar system could burn it to a crisp if fluctuations occur.

Dude, just look at the chart I posted above. Sun fluctuations have NOTHING to do with the warming trends we're seeing. The sun is a very stable star, the fluctuations are relatively minor and don't explain what we're seeing, and the warming trends correlate to the amount of greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere since the industrial age. Which is something you can measure by taking ice-core samples.

Not to be an asshole but we humans are completely ignorant about the sun. A small fraction of any change results in major changes on Earth.

We don't know enough about our own planet to know about this stuff and yet we are being taxed on green agenda issues which are way out of our control.

Look up the jet stream. People have super computers and the smartest people alive working on this and they are struggling to comprehend how it works outside of the obvious behaviours.

Tell me how an entire agenda can make a gas such as CO2 seem evil when the planet requires it to sustain an atmosphere?

The sun changes from year to year and yet we have scientists claiming it has little to no affect. I'm afraid it does so call me ignorant on any research you can come up with but when I look into these things all I see is a desire to generate $$$.

It isn't just heat which changes our atmosphere it is solar winds and gravity. The northern lights are an example of this in action.

Mars is another golden example. The planets engine seized up, the lack of CO2 made the atmosphere thin and vulnerable and as a result the planet was left exposed to the harmful ultra violet light and solar winds. All of these things can be attributed to the sun.

[Uzisuicide]

UN official admits global warming scare is to kill off capitalism. That's why conservatives are against the movement and liberals are for it.

http://www.truthandaction.org/un-officia...apitalism/

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

delete

[Chunnel]

(02-18-2015 10:10 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

If global warming/climate change believers were even remotely serious about their beliefs, they'd be advocating for a) an end to immigration to the U.S. and b) initiatives to lower the birthrate in third-world countries.

More people = more problems. More people in the U.S. means more energy usage, aka more greenhouse gases. Not only that, the countries that are sending the wretched refuse of their teeming shores to America, such as Mexico, couldn't give two flying fucks about how they're polluting the Earth.

Anyone who's spent time in a second- or third-world country knows what I'm talking about. The Philippines, where I lived for part of last year, is an environmentalist's worst nightmare. No pollution controls on cars means that there's tons of exhaust and smog in places like Manila, like L.A. circa 1962. People burn garbage with no regard for the toxins they're pumping into the air. When I was there, my eyes adjusted to the dusty, smoggy air so thoroughly that when I went back to the U.S., my eyes were tearing up due to all the excess moisture they were producing to compensate for the Philippines' disgusting air quality (and how the moisture was no longer needed).

The fact of the matter is that environmentalism and global warming are bugaboos that only first-worlders and white people care about. The immigrants coming into the U.S. want to live the American Dream, which entails being able to make enough money to drive a gas-guzzling car and own a home with central AC. They're more opposed to environmental restrictions then the most rabid right-wing Republican.

As for the population issue, lowering the global birthrate would be easy. Tie foreign aid to fertility rate: countries that lower their birthrate by a certain percentage get more aid money. Require that women on welfare back home get IUDs so they can't have more kids that they can't afford. BAM! Problem solved.

Forget whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's man-made. These two measures---ending immigration and cutting the global fertility rate---would do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions then all the Catholic indulgence---er, I mean "carbon credits" in the world.

The fact that not a single global warming Chicken Little is calling for either indicates that they are completely full of shit.

This is a global issue, not US centric. In fact with China's growth they have the most influence on Carbon emissions going forth. Here's a good breakdown on the issue, scroll down to Andrew Morriss (though both articles present valid points.)

Quote:

To effectively fight climate change, the total reduction of emissions globally is what matters, not cuts by a single country. Without global buy-in, one country acting alone has the same impact as doing nothing. No feasible reduction by the U.S. can have a meaningful impact on global greenhouse-gas levels without the participation of the European Union and China, where rapid economic growth has dramatically increased emissions. Even cutting U.S. levels 25% would reduce world emissions by a total of less than 4%. Growth in China at current rates would replace those reductions in less than two years.

To the second bolded point I disagree with this. For convenience's sake lets assume population comes under control and population remains constant for the next ten years, or even dips by 1%. There still will be emerging markets all over Africa, Asia, and Central and South America experiencing unprecedented national growth. And naturally when a country grows, the rate of new infrastructure and construction increases as well. All of which is far more energy intensive than several hundred thousand Mexicans driving their own pickup truck rather than sitting in the back of one.

In my opinion what needs to be done to address carbon emissions is smartly develop and design the areas (read cities) that will be the home to new construction booms. You said Manila is a shit hole, so new urban areas must learn from the mistakes of megacities like Lagos, Kinshasa, Jakarta that are so destructive. Making the investment now to fund alternate fuels like wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal will pay off mightily in the future when energy intensive construction projects will continue to thrive.

[speakeasy]

(02-18-2015 10:10 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

If global warming/climate change believers were even remotely serious about their beliefs, they'd be advocating for a) an end to immigration to the U.S. and b) initiatives to lower the birthrate in third-world countries.

As it happens I support both...kind of. The first, I wouldn't end all legal immigration out-right, I'd just reduce to numbers to something more reasonable, it would be dependent on need rather than immigration for its own sake. I would however end illegal immigration. As for lowering birthrate in the 3rd world. I don't have any control over how many kids they have in India and Ethiopia. These poor countries don't have much industrialization or consumerism. Most these people are living off a few dollars a day. They aren't the ones contributing to the global warming problem on a per capita basis. The US is the worse by far, per capita.

[lskdfjldsf]

I'm all for environmentalism - the U.S. is a beautiful country and it's nature & animals are worth protecting. Even if global warming isn't real today, it's still worth preventing in the future. I'm sure many guys here who grew up outdoors feel the same when it comes to the basic regulation of emissions.

But when a single factory in China produces more pollutants and toxins than 50 in America combined, it's a matter of only being as strong as our weakest link. The earth is round, we all share the same water and air, and one corner of the earth is capable of completely negating the positive steps everyone else takes.

Pittsburgh used to be the most polluted city in America. If you parked your car, you could swipe your finger on the windshield after 10 minutes and be caked with black soot. Now it's rated one of the most beautiful and liveable cities in America. Regulations and new technologies resulting from public pressure and local movements (combined with the industry itself dying down) had a huge impact in improving public health.







The Chinese and other developing countries will eventually get to this point but until they do, I'm not worried if I toss my trash in the wrong recycling bin.