"If you can think of a better way to get ice, I'd like to hear it."

Simpsons did it.

People pay for "designer ice cubes"? And just when I think I've heard the dumbest thing you could possibly spend money on.

Sybarite: People pay for "designer ice cubes"? And just when I think I've heard the dumbest thing you could possibly spend money on.

Actually glacier ice melts slower and has a different flavor than man made ice. Of course we COULD duplicate it crystal for crystal in a factory any day we wanted to, but it's just cheaper to cut a block off and sell it that way than build a factory.

My local bar in Japan holds an "event" each month. Every summer they get about 50 kg of Norwegian glacial ice for their cocktails. It is indeed different. But I wouldn't pay extra for it.

On that note, the Global Climate Change deniers have been mighty quiet around these parts lately.

The whole "it snows in winter so global warming is a myth" argument doesn't work very well when there isn't a winter in most of the country.

sarah_t_s: 've never actually met someone who outright rejects the concept of climate change. I've met people who don't believe the man made malarky.

ಠ_ಠ

Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2011): Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance. Nature Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327.

Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind (2008): How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864.

sarah_t_s: EvilEgg: On that note, the Global Climate Change deniers have been mighty quiet around these parts lately.

I've never actually met someone who outright rejects the concept of climate change. I've met people who don't believe the man made malarky. I've met people who are suspicious about it due to certain, more insane, elements proclaiming that we should all give up cars/public transport and work closer to home whilst also demanding that places like the city of Reading should be raised to the ground.

I have however met a great many people concerned that we're seeing a knee jerk reaction which will have long term consequences that are not favorable; mandating electric cars with 100 mile range and 10 hour recharge to replace IC cars with 300 mile range and 10 min recharge without changing the configuration of trains to carry those EV's to within range of their destination as an example of that. Or brining more generating capacity online to keep up with the demand these millions of EV's are going to bring with them as another.

But no, I've never met someone who doesn't believe the climate is changing.

The argument was never about that there were cycles. The problem comes in with recognizing patterns when CO₂ levels rise and fall.
Link (new window)
Yes, that has happened.

The problem is that as a species, man has a far bigger impact on their eviroment due to numbers (new window)

History have shown how much atmosphere changes when volcanoes blow up..now just imagine a steady stream of the same gasses over time, instead of all at once...

sarah_t_s: EvilEgg: On that note, the Global Climate Change deniers have been mighty quiet around these parts lately.

I've never actually met someone who outright rejects the concept of climate change


I've met plenty of people who start out at that position. Then retreat back to "it's not man made"

sarah_t_s: EvilEgg:
I've met plenty of people who start out at that position. Then retreat back to "it's not man made"

And? Are they saying the climate isn't changing?

Whenever I get into a discussion with these folks, they start off saying the climate isn't changing. Then we go back and forth a while. Then finally they retreat to it is changing, but it's a natural thing, nothing to be done about it and hold that line.

I've had some success pushing back from that line, when I explain that yes I know it is a big scary issue and getting society to change is neigh on impossible. So in the end mostly it is them justifying to themselves why they can do nothing.

sarah_t_s: Your point?

You said:

sarah_t_s: I've never actually met someone who outright rejects the concept of climate change. I've met people who don't believe the man made malarky.

What is "malarkey" about the anthropogenic nature of the present change?

sarah_t_s: Your point? Beyond finger pointing I mean.

I asked a question. Do you need me to repeat it? Sure thing, friend!

You said:

sarah_t_s: I've never actually met someone who outright rejects the concept of climate change. I've met people who don't believe the man made malarky.

What is "malarkey" about the anthropogenic nature of the present change?

Thanks!

EvilEgg: On that note, the Global Climate Change deniers have been mighty quiet around these parts lately.

They're busy with the Election?

They've forced Gingrich to recant, Romney is flip-flopping so fast he is generating enough electricity to power his campaign bus, and Ron Paul is ... well, Ron Paul is still crazy after all these years. Ba-da-Boom! Ba-da-Bing!

sarah_t_s: What's with the man made malarky? Well, exactly, how many threads on Fark have you seen where various graphs have been challenged by other graps?

That's malarkey right there.

Thanks for answering. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

Just so I can understand what you're trying to say- it's your belief or opinion that scientific topics are "malarkey" if an overwhelmingly supported mainstream scientific perspective is challenged by contrarians on discussion fora as long as the latter post graphs?

So, by your own definition, one would claim evolution is "malarkey"? I don't really see the reasoning behind that position.

sarah_t_s: I asked you a but load of questions about actual issues related to adapting to climate change.

sarah_t_s: I think he's focused on sorting out who's to blame for a problem without actually looking at or discussing the issues around adapting to and overcoming a problem.

Sorry, I am going to have to politely disagree.

The "why" of something matters tremendously if one is interested in ameliorating it.

Bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance necessitates a different response from the medical community than if Yahweh is merely testing his flock's faith.

Recognizing that the present climatic change is being driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases gives us options for dealing with the problem that would be unavailable if, say, the change was being driven by an increasing solar irradiance.

We live in an age where we have the technological capability (if not necessarily the foresight and political will) to stabilize our greenhouse emissions.

sarah_t_s: Which is ever so slightly backwards.

If you legitimately don't believe we understand what's driving the present change, to what level do you propose we "adapt"?

Take the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, for example. We have paleoclimatic bounds on the amount of sea level rise to be expected by a given increase in GHGs over the long term, which can inform our adaptation strategy for coastal habitation and infrastructure. If you believe we don't know what's driving the present warming, how do you determine the threshold for adaptation?

Thanks!