Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   "U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur climate change skeptics are Republicans." Sure -- people who think Ted Stevens is innocent will belive anything   (boston.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3542 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:28 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



688 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-04 12:29:34 PM  

fernt: If you want a "hockey stick" it's easy to generate one. Then profit from teh grant money rolling in.


Yeah. It's academic and government research scientists who have all the money in this debate. They be rollin' in their gold-plated Priuses. (Prii?) You be hatin'. Poor Exxon. Suck it, Citgo.

You realize that they don't get to keep grant money, right? That it's not a farking Ed McMahon Prize Van novelty check? That the majority of it is used in paying the salaries of graduate students, postdocs, and adminstrative overhead?

Now, look at the other side. There is a trillion-dollar industry that is making record profits right now on the status quo. Can you think of any reason their claims might be suspect?

No? Congratulations. You're a loyal Fark IndependentTM.
 
2008-08-04 12:29:35 PM  
chimp_ninja 2008-08-04 12:24:54 PM

Newsflash: An "entire century" is 100 years. See if you can spot the long-term trend.


Newsflash, this century didn't start in 1908. It started in 2001.

Now see if you can find the warming this century in that graph.
 
2008-08-04 12:29:42 PM  

MrCommonSense: "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing"...



how do bumpersticker slogans relate to this thread?

topic, man, topic!
 
2008-08-04 12:29:56 PM  

ramathorn83: This global climate change is really picking up- and people who deny it (like my father) are morans.


img172.imageshack.us



Common sense. Get some.
 
2008-08-04 12:30:38 PM  

Devil's Avocado: Subby: Sure- people who think Ted Stevens Kennedy is innocent will belive believe anything

Apropos of nothing, FTFY.


Of course the difference is that most "liberals" know that nearly all of our own party leaders are corrupt self-serving dirtbags, while most so-called "conservatives" delude themselves into believing their own part leaders are paragons of moral virtue.

Sort of goes hand in hand with their general willful ignorance of any kind of information they are uncomfortable with. Weird facts like being queer isn't antithetical to being a normal productive citizen or how being any color other than white does not indicate a desire to steal your car or go on welfare.

Or how someone can criticize the policy and actions of our nation while still caring a great deal for it.
 
2008-08-04 12:31:01 PM  

Mongo cut wood: Cause people who are skeptical must be idiots. People who question science are idiots. You should believe everything science tells you.



Mongo not just pawn in game of life---him right!

Yep, question the "scientific findings" of the superior and be branded an idiot. Typical. Can't support a claim so create a diversion. Weak.
 
2008-08-04 12:31:09 PM  

pendy575: If the republicans were trumpeting the global warming stance it would be viewed as a war against poor people. Only the wealthy can afford to live green. In addition the rising cost of transportation keeps the poor locked into their own geography.


Whew! Well, thank god for them that they aren't, eh? This must be why they constantly protect the biggest polluters in our society and deny that they play any role in our quality of life, unless it's good or course.
 
2008-08-04 12:31:51 PM  
Can anyone spot the funny part of this statement?

You realize that they don't get to keep grant money, right? That it's not a farking Ed McMahon Prize Van novelty check? That the majority of it is used in paying the salaries of graduate students, postdocs, and adminstrative overhead?

too funny
 
2008-08-04 12:32:05 PM  

internut scholar: Retodd: firefly212: Here's the crux of the global warming argument:

If the global warming people are right and we cut down the amount of crap that we put into the air, we save the planet.

If the skeptics are right and we cut down the amount of crap we put into the air, we get a cleaner and healthier planet.

So... what I don't understand is what the big argument is about not making such a damned mess of the place.

THIS.

(though I suspect the so-called "skeptics" care more about protecting industry than cleaning up the planet).

Yes, because there will be absolutely no consequence to destroying our economy, no one will suffer because of that.

It's ok though, I am sure there will be a Democrat plan to help those people.


can anyone tell me how the party that has been completely destroying the economy can also be the savior of the economy?
i never have been able to grasp this irony.
 
2008-08-04 12:33:12 PM  

Frosted Flake: One of the problems that I see is that data from ice core samples seem to indicate that CO2 levels seem to lage temperature rises by a few hundred years, which seems to support the idea that the rise in CO2 may be due to it's decreased solubility in the oceans with increasing temperature.


Read Caillon's 2003 Science paper if this strikes you as condradictory. Caillon was the first to document the phenomenon you're discussing, and drew the opposite conclusion-- and it's since been substantiated by a number of followups.

There is mutual positive feedback-- a massive dose of greenhouse gases will trigger warming, but things like Milankovitch orbital cycles that trigger warming will also produce a temporary spike in carbon dioxide as permafrost thaws, etc.
 
2008-08-04 12:33:36 PM  
Retodd

You may want to check the holdings of Gores hedge fund.
 
2008-08-04 12:33:44 PM  

internut scholar: Retodd: firefly212: Here's the crux of the global warming argument:

If the global warming people are right and we cut down the amount of crap that we put into the air, we save the planet.

If the skeptics are right and we cut down the amount of crap we put into the air, we get a cleaner and healthier planet.

So... what I don't understand is what the big argument is about not making such a damned mess of the place.

THIS.

(though I suspect the so-called "skeptics" care more about protecting industry than cleaning up the planet).

Yes, because there will be absolutely no consequence to destroying our economy, no one will suffer because of that.

It's ok though, I am sure there will be a Democrat plan to help those people.


I didn't put a value judgement on it. Just stated what seemed to be obvious.

Thank you for confirming it.
 
2008-08-04 12:34:02 PM  

Brockway: FTFA:
First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed

What disruption of the global climate?

According to NOAA data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for cooling, not warming:

Also FTFA:
First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.")
Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("OK, it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")

You forgot this one:

Finally, they tell you that the NOAA data shows cooling this century.


This is the second time I've seen this chart. If you simply plot the anomalies you see a very clear upward trend. Did you create this yourself or take it from someone else? I don't know how anyone can honestly look at the data from the link you provide and not say there is a warming trend that seems pretty significant and also seems recent (as in last 1/2 century).
 
2008-08-04 12:34:58 PM  
tyrajam
Suddenly climate change means they can legislate what kind of cars are produced, how much drilling can occur, what kind of lightbulb we can use and what our thermostat is set at. Oh yeah, and we must donate billions to 3rd world countries to help them adapt.

And here's the "You're not the boss of me!"

Just like everything else, follow the money folks, its not that complicated


Yup, follow the money - Oil industry awash in record levels of cash (MSNBC.COM)

Who needs "millions in grant money" when the top ten oil companies made profits of over $125,000,000,000 (that's $125 BILLION, folks) IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS.
 
2008-08-04 12:35:07 PM  

fernt: ramathorn83: This global climate change is really picking up- and people who deny it (like my father) are morans.

Common sense. Get some.


is that written by dixie lee radiation?!?!

former DOE secretary, governor of washington, and totally, completely corrupt human being.

she ran the goddamned state like a nuclear fiefdom.

if anything comes out of that lady's mouth, IT'S A LIE.
 
2008-08-04 12:35:10 PM  
The article never states who conducted the poll or any specific numbers coming from the poll.
 
2008-08-04 12:35:24 PM  

Brockway:
According to NOAA data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for cooling, not warming:

You forgot this one:

Finally, they tell you that the NOAA data shows cooling this century.


THIS

Funny to me that the easily manipulated libs jumped right onto the kyoto and carbon footprint band wagon that was simply a divisive political ploy. Environmental responsibility is good but this subjective "science" that we're forced to read about is laughable. Now that the impending ice age has passed and we've solved the world's environmental crisis caused by styrofoam big-mac containers and six pack loops insatiable environmentalists are onto a cooling climate that they call global warming. It makes for great comedy as irony is almost always funny. Thanks to all for the entertainment.
 
2008-08-04 12:35:50 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: If only people weren't so against nuclear power that the US could have the same % of power generation as France.


The thing is, the people that keep calling for nuclear power balk at putting the plants in their backyards or storing the waste near them.
 
2008-08-04 12:36:25 PM  
Why do you people argue about global warming?

For anyone too lazy to actually look through the scientific literature... a simple google search will provide links to every major science institution on the planet and a summary of the current scientific understanding.

So when some idiot farker posts a link to a blog that says global warming is a lie, why do you argue with them!?!?! Just link them to an actual science institution (AAAS (new window)) and tell them to shut it!

Perhaps in the future we'll find that global warming is not in fact caused so much by humans. If that happens, the people to figure it out will not be the republican idiots arguing against it for the past decade, it will be real scientists.

This issue was resolved a decade ago, it's mind boggling that the debate persists (in the US only, of course).

If you don't know how to browse the scientific literature or what a 'real' science institution is (e.g. AAAS, Royal Society, NAS...), then what are you doing giving your opinion on a science issue?
 
2008-08-04 12:36:36 PM  

RanDomino: glassa
Hey, if Global Warming is real, and evolution is real why are so many people worried so much about it? Humans and animals will just evolve with the warming, right?

Because evolution takes thousands of years. The full effects of global warming/climate change will hit us before the end of this millennium.

I've heard that warming is also happening on other planets, including Mars & Jupiter. I bet it's our fault on those planets too.

You heard wrong!
But rather than do the slightest bit of research, you choose to parrot what you prefer be true. You decided that global warming is a liberal myth, and you and your ilk argue from that position.


How is that any different from the people parroting the global warming by people myth? You've decided that it's true and you argue from that position. And those who believe in the scam go beyond arguing...they mock & belittle people who question the GW myth and those who stand to make a great deal of money pushing the agenda.
 
2008-08-04 12:37:05 PM  
How can you people sit there and argue? THE POLAR BEARS ARE DYING!
 
2008-08-04 12:37:18 PM  
firefly212: Here's the crux of the global warming argument:

If the global warming people are right and we cut down the amount of crap that we put into the air, we save the planet.

If the skeptics are right and we cut down the amount of crap we put into the air, we get a cleaner and healthier planet.


Ahhh, but we also all end up much poorer, living lifestyles rather more like in the 1700's than in the last 50 years. And, no doubt, some countries won't be willing to make the sacrifice that you are so generously offering on my behalf. Which means that those of us committed by our leaders to making the sacrifice will end up crushed under the boots of the evil polluting non-believers.

So, really, the dichotomy is more like this (if you want to believe in the false dichotomy):

If the believers are right and we sacrifice our technology on the altar of Gaia, we save the planet and lose our position as leader of a free world. Hopefully the new leaders of the free world will be willing to commit civilizational suicide when THEIR civilization ends up ruining the world...

Or, if the skeptics are right, we sacrifice our technology and our role as leaders of the free world and gain nothing, leaving the world to stumble back into a nasty, harsh, brutish existence without hope.

Sounds great. Thanks for being willing to sacrifice me and all my progeny on the altar of Gaia to make yourself feel better. It's what makes you the precious little snowflake your mom loves and adores so much.
 
2008-08-04 12:37:27 PM  
Retodd

Please help me understand how the average family can afford to go green. The system is being set up so the rich can have a free pass via the purchase of carbon credits (whatever those are). The poor get to ride overcrowded public transportation?
 
2008-08-04 12:37:32 PM  

JimbobMcClan: Nutsac_Jim: If only people weren't so against nuclear power that the US could have the same % of power generation as France.

The thing is, the people that keep calling for nuclear power balk at putting the plants in their backyards or storing the waste near them.


Let's put the plants and waste in Arkansas. Because any genetic modification would be a plus in their gene pool.
 
2008-08-04 12:37:41 PM  

randomizetimer: The article never states who conducted the poll or any specific numbers coming from the poll.


it was a poll by the rick romero research group
 
2008-08-04 12:38:02 PM  

Digital Communist: Why do you people argue about global warming?

For anyone too lazy to actually look through the scientific literature... a simple google search will provide links to every major science institution on the planet and a summary of the current scientific understanding.

So when some idiot farker posts a link to a blog that says global warming is a lie, why do you argue with them!?!?! Just link them to an actual science institution (AAAS (new window)) and tell them to shut it!

Perhaps in the future we'll find that global warming is not in fact caused so much by humans. If that happens, the people to figure it out will not be the republican idiots arguing against it for the past decade, it will be real scientists.

This issue was resolved a decade ago, it's mind boggling that the debate persists (in the US only, of course).

If you don't know how to browse the scientific literature or what a 'real' science institution is (e.g. AAAS, Royal Society, NAS...), then what are you doing giving your opinion on a science issue?


"Skeptics" response: Uhhhhhhhhhh......FOUR LEGS GOOD! TWO LEGS BAD! FOUR LEGS GOOD! TWO LEGS BAD! FOUR LEGS GOOD! TWO LEGS BAD!
 
2008-08-04 12:38:14 PM  

fernt: Common sense. Get some.


Lou Guzzo?

Rush Limbaugh??

Sounds like a real treat, there.
 
2008-08-04 12:40:08 PM  
firefly212
So... what I don't understand is what the big argument is about not making such a damned mess of the place.

Unnecessary consumption drives the economy.


infantry
the world will not come to an end. life will slowly adapt to the change that is happening.

The world will not come to an end. However, all that 'life' crawling around on it will have a very difficult millennium. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of mass extinction events. While there are probably too many people on this planet, I don't think reducing the population via mass starvation is a good policy.


biggreentree07
the idea that man can destroy the world is just plain stupid

Do you feel that this is true? In your gut?


fernt
If you want a "hockey stick" it's easy to generate one. Then profit from teh grant money rolling in.

Stop pretending you know how science works. You're embarrassing yourself.


Brockway
Yeah. I posted a graph of the NOAA data for this century. How idiotic.

You really don't understand why the last eight years is irrelevant?


internut scholar
Yes, because there will be absolutely no consequence to destroying our economy

It will cost somewhere in the range of $30 Billion per year for 10 years, or 1/3 the cost of the Iraq War so far.


fernt
Common sense.

"I don't understand science, therefore scientists are wrong!"
 
2008-08-04 12:40:23 PM  
Meanwhile, most climate change proponents are Democratic amateurs who know nothing about science or the weather.
 
2008-08-04 12:40:27 PM  
Most of the Young Earth Creationists are Republicans too. I guess that makes sense.
 
2008-08-04 12:40:41 PM  
i302.photobucket.com
/Pedantic spelling nazi for a day
//Monday
 
Ral
2008-08-04 12:42:21 PM  
I'd like to know how they phrase a question like that in polling. Do they just ask what party you're currently registered with for voting purposes? I'm currently registered Republican. It changes depending on who's in the primaries. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, or a Libertarian or anything else on the roster.
 
2008-08-04 12:42:35 PM  
RanDomino: The temperature change in the last few hundred years is of a degree that usually takes thousands of years. We're witnessing geological time, you think?

Wouldn't surprise me if it happened before, long before humans. I'm convinced this is more anthropocentrism run amok plus a little bit of post hoc fallacy thrown in - something bad is happening to the planet, it happened after we got here, therefore we must be the cause. The science may be entirely right, but the public policy solutions being proposed in response have the stench of statism, central planning, and command-and-control economics written all over them. (I rate whether people are actually serious about climate change by whether they support or oppose nuclear power, one of the few practical non-carbon based sources of energy available.)

Also, remember CFCs? They punched a frickin' hole in the Ozone Layer, and now that they're banned, the hole is shrinking (slowly and slightly; it'll take a few hundred years to heal, but it's not growing, which proves that CFCs caused it). Humanity already has shown its capacity to do massive damage to the atmosphere, and you claim it is invulnerable?? You are sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away so you don't have to deal with it!

There's a simple chemical formula that shows how a CFC molecule reacts to destabilize O3...

www.fsl.noaa.gov

Plus, and even more importantly, there were available substitutes for CFCs for propellants and coolants, which are now in use today. That "crisis" was over before it began, and the world economy kept on humming.

Unfortunately, the analogy to CO2 doesn't work. A. CO2 isn't exactly some weird lab-created chemical, it's been a major component of Earth's atmosphere since... well, ever. B. In terms of a fuel that can be practically used for transportation there are no substitutes for carbon fuels (and no, don't start with hydrogen or electricity, unless you're willing to at least concede the need for a metric assload of nuclear reactors to make the hydrogen and/or electricity).

So from A (CO2 is a known quantity, not some deadly environmental poison) and B (there are no practical non-carbon transport fuels presently available), I predict C: attempting to eliminate carbon-based fuels will result in no observable difference in the climate, but it will certainly fark up the world economy. (I'm not sure whether the "climate scientists" intentionally lowball the economic costs, or if they're indifferent to or ignorant of them. Then again, like all advocates of centrally planned economies, it's probably a combination of all three.) There's more than one sandpile that a person's head can get stuck in. Hell, there's already been a massive increase in global food prices directly traceable to the "green" ethanol rush. Please don't try to tell me that this climate change panic had nothing to do with it.
 
2008-08-04 12:42:38 PM  
What it's really all about.

webpages.charter.net
 
2008-08-04 12:43:16 PM  
Nutsac_Jim
So if I take $5,000 from your bank account and flush it down the toilet, you can't complain because its it a positive thing that some guy at the shiat processing plant gets paid to clean out the filters clogged with your $100 bills? After all,, that guy might not have had a job otherwise.

Are you equating a blue collar worker's salary with the possibility of avoiding wars, polluting the planet you reside in less therefore minimizing you from breathing carcinogens, creating a more efficient vibrant economy and being yet again a beacon for the world?

You guys have your priorities completely out of whack. Do you know that the internet you are writing on came to prominence due to some taxpayer's expense right? You realize that most of the technologies we depend on were helped a little bit by government intervention and taxpayer's money? We all live in one giant society, its not every man for himself. Its called societal progress. It exists and will continue to exist whether you like it or not. Sooner or later we will be forced to deal with the consequences of our lifestyle, 4.50 a gallon was a preview of things to come and you refuse to work together for a great solution because you think those who oppose your ideology are dirty hippies.

A selfish lot, sad.
 
2008-08-04 12:43:38 PM  
RanDomino 2008-08-04 12:40:08 PM:

You really don't understand why the last eight years is irrelevant?


Yeah, I do. They go against doctrine, therefore they can be safely ignored.
 
2008-08-04 12:43:50 PM  

pendy575: Retodd

Please help me understand how the average family can afford to go green. The system is being set up so the rich can have a free pass via the purchase of carbon credits (whatever those are). The poor get to ride overcrowded public transportation?


Simple, pendy. The fact is, most of the poor you keep refering don't need to "go green" because they are "green" already. They have always been green because it is cheaper, and it is made up of a bunch of different lifestyle changes they've made out of neccessity that add up over time.

-They hang dry their clothes in the backyard (the dryer is a huge energy waster)
-They ride mass transit
-They re-use everything that they can.
-They grow their own vegetables (and in East Austin, their own chickens and eggs too).
-They're walking a lot more as energy prices go up.
-They are sharing rides.
-They are using their A/C and heaters less.

And a million more things my middle-class brain can't comprehend.

They do these things not because they are eco-warriors but because it is cheaper to do this.

So really, it is the rich who are going to have to struggle the most to "go green" because it requires sacrifies they have never had to make before.

There is more to it than Priuses and solar panels, man.
 
2008-08-04 12:43:52 PM  

Dadx6: firefly212: Here's the crux of the global warming argument:

If the global warming people are right and we cut down the amount of crap that we put into the air, we save the planet.

If the skeptics are right and we cut down the amount of crap we put into the air, we get a cleaner and healthier planet.

Ahhh, but we also all end up much poorer, living lifestyles rather more like in the 1700's than in the last 50 years. And, no doubt, some countries won't be willing to make the sacrifice that you are so generously offering on my behalf. Which means that those of us committed by our leaders to making the sacrifice will end up crushed under the boots of the evil polluting non-believers.

So, really, the dichotomy is more like this (if you want to believe in the false dichotomy):

If the believers are right and we sacrifice our technology on the altar of Gaia, we save the planet and lose our position as leader of a free world. Hopefully the new leaders of the free world will be willing to commit civilizational suicide when THEIR civilization ends up ruining the world...

Or, if the skeptics are right, we sacrifice our technology and our role as leaders of the free world and gain nothing, leaving the world to stumble back into a nasty, harsh, brutish existence without hope.

Sounds great. Thanks for being willing to sacrifice me and all my progeny on the altar of Gaia to make yourself feel better. It's what makes you the precious little snowflake your mom loves and adores so much.


wow. that's all sorts of crazy.

are you a holocaust truther as well?
 
2008-08-04 12:44:30 PM  

Rockdrummer: ...those who believe William Jefferson is innocent...


No such animal.
 
2008-08-04 12:44:31 PM  

patrick767: These are mostly people who are extremely anti-intellectual and give no credit to expert opinion unless it happens to be a so-called expert who agrees with them. They think the UN, Europe, most scientists, and much of the rest of the world are libs and America haters.

ie. They're idiots.


This Arrrgggument goes both ways. See you havent been reading much. Dude who invented your religion is going before congress to explain his skewed numbers. Sucks being wrong.... ARG For all of you that don't know what I'm talking about, please do a little research.
 
2008-08-04 12:44:46 PM  
glassa
How is that any different from the people parroting the global warming by people myth? You've decided that it's true and you argue from that position.

When I hear contradictory arguments, I investigate them.


Dadx6
Ahhh, but we also all end up much poorer, living lifestyles rather more like in the 1700's than in the last 50 years.

Here's a guy who's never heard of wind and solar power.


pendy575
Please help me understand how the average family can afford to go green. The system is being set up so the rich can have a free pass via the purchase of carbon credits (whatever those are). The poor get to ride overcrowded public transportation?

Avoiding "Green Apartheid" is the next challenge of Progressives in this country.
 
2008-08-04 12:45:31 PM  
"US polls indicate that most of the amateur climate change skeptics are Republicans."

On the other hand, almost every professional Global Warming myth pimp is a Democrat.
 
2008-08-04 12:45:54 PM  
pendy575
You may want to check the holdings of Gores hedge fund.

Do folks like you disbelieve because you think the mounds of evidence that global climate change is at least partially man-made is wrong... or do you disbelieve because you dislike Al Gore? Would you believe if someone on the conservative republican side was leading the charge to stop GCC?
 
2008-08-04 12:45:56 PM  
"And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all."

I see Fark was mentioned in the article.
 
2008-08-04 12:46:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Most of the Young Earth Creationists are Republicans too. I guess that makes sense.


and serial killers are republican over democrat 4 to 1.
 
M-G
2008-08-04 12:47:02 PM  

Brockway: Newsflash, this century didn't start in 1908. It started in 2001.

Now see if you can find the warming this century in that graph.


But you said for this 'entire century' which would be a period of 100 years, not something that aligns with a given place on the calendar. And a single 7 year span is hardly significant.

schadenfreudian: we've solved the world's environmental crisis caused by styrofoam big-mac containers and six pack loops


We have? Last I checked polystyrene isn't biodegradable, and isn't highly recyclable. And I guess you've missed the articles about all the plastic trash circulating in the Pacific Ocean.
 
2008-08-04 12:47:11 PM  

chimp_ninja: Now, look at the other side. There is a trillion-dollar industry that is making record profits right now on the status quo. Can you think of any reason their claims might be suspect?


The oil companies LURVE the global warming conspiracy theorists. The hysteria causes people to actually welcome gas price increases, (oooh if it costs more people will drive less - hooray!) thereby increasing the oil company's profits even further.
 
2008-08-04 12:47:38 PM  
If Gore is such an expert, why does he run every time a real climate scientist wants to debate man-made global warming?

(See pic above for answer)
 
2008-08-04 12:47:50 PM  
Did anyone else ever notice how many people on fark apparently have climatology degrees?
 
2008-08-04 12:48:14 PM  
MasterThief

Err, you do realize the carbon in fossil fuels have been sequestered from the atmosphere (i.e. not affecting it) for millions of years right? You do know that Carbon Dioxide has been known as a greenhouse gase for over 150 years?

As for the Nuclear reactor option, I am all for that so long as we go for fast breeder type (or similar) that is 90%+ efficient and the only unfissionable byproducts have half lives in years rather than millenia.
 
Displayed 50 of 688 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report