I should be in the kitchen: Here's what I really don't understand... Even if global warming is all a big hoax, WTF is wrong with trying to curb pollution because, y'know, it's UNHEALTHY. Do they really want to go back to the 70s when "smog days" were so bad people couldn't go outside? Do they think it's ok for companies to dump industrial waste into waterways?

The modern ecology movement began when scientists were not sure if we were in for global warming or global cooling or something else. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I'm not sure why.

but but

some many are makin money on this one?

cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

No it didn't.

Kazan: muck4doo: ....

if global warming isn't real.. explain this data:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x465]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x322]

A Dark Evil Omen: Kazan: muck4doo: ....

if global warming isn't real.. explain this data:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x465]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x322]

It's a conspiracy. George Soros did it. Al Gore. Freedom. Light bulbs.

There, I've covered everything muck would say and you don't have to read his drivel.

Kazan: muck4doo: GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: Why do I feel like most things you remember from the 60s and 70s only happened on celluloid?

I don't care what the fark he remembers. If I wanted to listen to Republican bullshiat, I'd put on Rush Limbaugh.

*click heels* there's no place like home there's no place like home there's no place like home*/unclick heels*

Yeah, you live in fantasy land. We already know that Gat. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate our global warming fear mongering. We're all going to die, unless you do what we say, and repent from your ways.

only two people claim "we're all going to die" from global warming

1) global warming deniers who are pretending that a meaningful number of scientists said this
2) a few idiot journalists

what people ARE saying is

3) global warming will be immensely expensive
4) global warming will reduce farmable land
5) global warming will flood many low-lying areas putting many cities along coastlines under water


you know what it takes to solve this? not a terribly lot in the long run really

a) use the energy we produce more efficiently - Implication: your electricity bill, gas bill, etc are lower
b) use fossil fuels less, use renewables more - Implication: some large entrenched companies will see their profitability vastly reduced (oil companies), and new sectors will grow to replace them (this has already started - solar, wind, wave, biofuels, etc). reducing our dependance on foreign fossil fuels will increase our national security



so.. would you care to explain to me exactly how you are harmed by saving money by using energy more wisely, and using energy sources that don't create carbon or are actively part of the carbon cycle (all the carbon they put in had to come out first)?

The end approaches
The uneducated didn't listen
Scavenging about like roaches
the sad remains of man end
Carbon credits offered
We didn't listen
Next came the coffers
Instead Al Gore attack instead
...
Selected not elected!

/The final cry goes out like a whimper...

Apparently admitting we're having an effect on the climate will cut into someones profit margin. Lord knows we can't have that.

I should be in the kitchen: Do they really want to go back to the 70s when "smog days" were so bad people couldn't go outside? Do they think it's ok for companies to dump industrial waste into waterways?

They're Republicans. What do you think?

Kazan: mc6809e: You're not really using Wikipedia as a source, are you?

as a source? no .. their article cites their sources - everything is properly cited, etc. if you prefer i could post the actual sources.. but they're boring data tables and not concise graphics. i don't expect muck4doo to have the honesty to even look at simple laymens articles, why would i expect him to slog through technical data?

posting graphics that are properly sourced to NASA data is easier


NASA GISS (new window)

I don't expect honesty either out of you, so that makes us brothers.

....and then, mankind died, and the world ended. The prophets were ignored, and capitalism prevailed to doomed end...

Teufelaffe: culebra: I thought that honor belonged to religion.

I'm surprised that it took 62 posts for this to show up. I would have expected it to be the first one.

It's a thread about mass hysteria and AGW. Seems a bit redundant to also use "religion".

Kazan: muck4doo: ....

if global warming isn't real.. explain this data:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x465]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x443]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x322]

It's a weather balloon.

What global warming? It just snowed last week!

/...nevermind that we're on course to be the warmest winter on record around here...

AliceBToklasLives: So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?

Or, for the sake of argument, let's say anthropogenic global warming is utter truth.

Should we stop using cars, steel and plastic? Should we return to a hunter-gatherer society? I mean, is the entire notion of progress predicated on destroying the earth?

/This is fun

Nadie_AZ: This is the next outrage the GOP candidates will jump on ... as the social issues are failing to gain traction.

As a republican, I hope so. 75% of us dont believe like Santorum.

but at LEAST 75% of us are smart enough not to believe like Al Gore, too, so....

snowjack: Well, when you're developing a new industry, eventually you get better at it, and presumably your efforts will be more successful. Here's a little video about the history of this industry.

Thanks, those were interesting links.

Bares?

whatshisname: cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

No it didn't.

Enough of them did that that was the public's general perception.

/hangs out with older people who lived during that time.

See? Hysteria!

Oh, boy! Another climate change thread!

muck4doo: Moronic climate change denier like typing.

So you are smarter than the climate scientists who say this is a real problem and not just fear mongering like Faux news likes to spout all the time? They say ignorance is bliss. You must be on blissful Farker. The science is plain to anyone with even a limited knowledge of how to read and listen to intelligent people instead of just following Faux news. Are you afraid your oil company stocks will lose money or are you just not worried about the world we leave for future generations?

cuzsis: whatshisname: cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

No it didn't.

Enough of them did that that was the public's general perception.

/hangs out with older people who lived during that time.

Global cooling never the majority opinion in the scientific world. It got some magazine covers but even then global warming was the dominant theory. Didn't you see the graph up thread?

was never

boobsrgood: See? Hysteria!

[i242.photobucket.com image 403x500]

Woot! We'll have dinosaurs again soon!

/soon is relative to several million years, but hey! It's a start!

IlGreven: What global warming? It just snowed last week!

/...nevermind that we're on course to be the warmest winter on record around here...

And that we may very well pay for it later in the year with late frosts, reduced harvests, and a lame, cloudy summer.

At least we can enjoy the dumb editorials and political cartoons about "if global warming, why snow lol".

thenateman: AliceBToklasLives: So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?

Or, for the sake of argument, let's say anthropogenic global warming is utter truth.

Should we stop using cars, steel and plastic? Should we return to a hunter-gatherer society? I mean, is the entire notion of progress predicated on destroying the earth?

/This is fun

Or we could make a few relatively minor changes like reduce waste, watch our energy consumption, use public transport more often, and think before buying useless crap.

/my "hypotheticals", btw, are real - shiat that actually happened recently/is happening now (in my lifetime - I'm an old coont, but not that old)

I thought that honor belonged to the electric vibrator invented in 1880 by Dr. Joseph Mortimer Granville.

/please only fap with renewable energy

Kazan: muck4doo: GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: Why do I feel like most things you remember from the 60s and 70s only happened on celluloid?

I don't care what the fark he remembers. If I wanted to listen to Republican bullshiat, I'd put on Rush Limbaugh.

*click heels* there's no place like home there's no place like home there's no place like home*/unclick heels*

Yeah, you live in fantasy land. We already know that Gat. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate our global warming fear mongering. We're all going to die, unless you do what we say, and repent from your ways.

only two people claim "we're all going to die" from global warming

1) global warming deniers who are pretending that a meaningful number of scientists said this
2) a few idiot journalists

what people ARE saying is

3) global warming will be immensely expensive
4) global warming will reduce farmable land
5) global warming will flood many low-lying areas putting many cities along coastlines under water


you know what it takes to solve this? not a terribly lot in the long run really

a) use the energy we produce more efficiently - Implication: your electricity bill, gas bill, etc are lower
b) use fossil fuels less, use renewables more - Implication: some large entrenched companies will see their profitability vastly reduced (oil companies), and new sectors will grow to replace them (this has already started - solar, wind, wave, biofuels, etc). reducing our dependance on foreign fossil fuels will increase our national security



so.. would you care to explain to me exactly how you are harmed by saving money by using energy more wisely, and using energy sources that don't create carbon or are actively part of the carbon cycle (all the carbon they put in had to come out first)?


Full of crap and you know it. I like how warming only makes areas unfarmable in your little dumbass world. We have a hell of a lot of land that is almost farmable, but too cold. That land would open up. Oh, sea levels will rise?? Oh my gosh, humans cannot move, that sucks. Oh, it will be a little warmer in New England? Golly, that sucks. I LOVE 5 below zero.

You liberal fark ups won't let us use efficient and green power that has been available for decades. Why aren't we using nuclear much? Oh ya, goddamn hippies.

Bottom line is, you idiots take every single possible bad scenario and don't even look at any of the good. You don't have a goddamn clue what will happen, no idea what feedback effects will be, and still can't explain how the Earth goes through MUCH faster warming and cooling periods before evil George Bush came along. Humans caused the past Ice Ages and warm periods? Those assholes! Can't believe those Cave Men dared to use fire!

Oh ya, how am I harmed? When energy rates and taxes skyrocket because you insist I use partridge shiat to power my scooter and heat my yurt. You would collapse the entire goddamn economy to satisfy your heat-guilt and general ass-hattery.

elchip: What is it with conservatism that makes them reject all forms of science?

Science is hard when you never use the few brain cells you were lucky enough to be born with? I don't understand either. It's weird that they think they know more than the scientists who have been studying this issue for decades.

Finally someone comes out and tells the truth.

AliceBToklasLives: thenateman: AliceBToklasLives: So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?

Or, for the sake of argument, let's say anthropogenic global warming is utter truth.

Should we stop using cars, steel and plastic? Should we return to a hunter-gatherer society? I mean, is the entire notion of progress predicated on destroying the earth?

/This is fun

Or we could make a few relatively minor changes like reduce waste, watch our energy consumption, use public transport more often, and think before buying useless crap.

/my "hypotheticals", btw, are real - shiat that actually happened recently/is happening now (in my lifetime - I'm an old coont, but not that old)

In the world I see - you're stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

odinsposse: cuzsis: whatshisname: cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

No it didn't.

Enough of them did that that was the public's general perception.

/hangs out with older people who lived during that time.

Global cooling never the majority opinion in the scientific world. It got some magazine covers but even then global warming was the dominant theory. Didn't you see the graph up thread?

I did. And I would want to see more studies before deciding if this guy is full of it or not, since he contradicts everyone else. (Yay science!)

But, in terms of this particular discussion my point still stands. The public was *told* it was global cooling. Now they're being told it's global warming. Since we're not scientists and don't study this, we depend on the scientists having their shiat together to tell us what they think is going on. If they are flip flopping (even the appearance of it), they lose credibility.

Climatology, which is incredibly complex to begin with, has done that in a very short span of years. And has very little data to work with to begin with. Naturally this creates skepticism.

/took climatology in university

Thunderpipes: Kazan: muck4doo: GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984:

Full of crap and you know it. I like how warming only makes areas unfarmable in your little dumbass world. We have a hell of a lot of land that is almost farmable, but too cold. That land would open up. Oh, sea level ...

Mazimum trolling.

boobsrgood: See? Hysteria!

[i242.photobucket.com image 403x500]

And it's such hysteria with no basis in fact, that plants are moving north all on their own:

cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

Idiot, or liar?

cuzsis: The public was *told* it was global cooling. Now they're being told it's global warming.

It sounds like your beef is with the media, and their misrepresentation of scientific consensus, rather than the scientific community itself.

This article is an excellent example of said misrepresentation.

herrDrFarkenstein: AliceBToklasLives: thenateman: AliceBToklasLives: So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?

Or, for the sake of argument, let's say anthropogenic global warming is utter truth.

Should we stop using cars, steel and plastic? Should we return to a hunter-gatherer society? I mean, is the entire notion of progress predicated on destroying the earth?

/This is fun

Or we could make a few relatively minor changes like reduce waste, watch our energy consumption, use public transport more often, and think before buying useless crap.

/my "hypotheticals", btw, are real - shiat that actually happened recently/is happening now (in my lifetime - I'm an old coont, but not that old)

In the world I see - you're stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

that's some pretty heavy binary thinking there. Hunter-gatherer or polluted hell hole. Amazing we can't have anything in between!

something something the rule of 70 something something

Dusk-You-n-Me: paging jon snow

Careful, he may be followed in by White Walkers. Actually, they'd probably make more salient arguments that most of the trolls here. Let 'em come.

BMulligan: cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age.

Idiot, or liar?

Neither. Spend a lot of time talking with people who are 60ish. As well as taking some climatology in college.

And just in case you couldn't wrap your head around it. I don't have a dog in this fight. I want to stop polluting regardless of global warming. The point is moot to me. But given the history and complexity of the subject, I can understand the skepticism.

If I was having the week the repubs are having, I'd want to change the topic to something comparatively safe as well.

cuzsis: He is merely pointing out that "science" used to swear up and down that we were headed towards an ice age. Now

No it didn't. A vast majority of papers in the 70s swore up and down that global warming was coming. TRY AGAIN.