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.

•       •       •

11551 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 1:17 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

And that's just in Detroit

Gawdzila: impaler: I would rather have the whole of humanity perish than to have stupid ass global warming deniers think they were right

Lol, I think they're ridiculous as well, but I'd rather rescue the species and let them have their little victory of ignorance.

Pussy

Wadded Beef: The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.

In the future, historians will point to Dec. 21, 2012 as the last effective date for reducing the impact from emissions.

/Mayans ftw
//I hope reincarnation isn't real.
 1 vote:
article fails without...

 1 vote:
Yay global warming

 1 vote:

starsrift: impaler: starsrift: I argue that it is not chaotic, it is predictive and deterministic - and most importantly, a closed system.

Deterministic systems can be chaotic. Which is why I said I meant it in a mathematical sense.

Yeah, but...
Describing a deterministic system as chaotic is simply asserting that it is too discretely granular to submit it to complete analysis, which is wh--

Yeah, but. :P

I also gave this one a vote for "funny."
 1 vote:

impaler: An+1 = 4*An*(1 - An)

Now tell me what A100 is given that A1 is .3

Not sure what you're arguing here. I don't have my compiler in front of me just at the moment, but with it I could solve it in about five minutes, give or take four and a half minutes.
 1 vote:

impaler: starsrift: I argue that it is not chaotic, it is predictive and deterministic - and most importantly, a closed system.

Deterministic systems can be chaotic. Which is why I said I meant it in a mathematical sense.

Yeah, but...
Describing a deterministic system as chaotic is simply asserting that it is too discretely granular to submit it to complete analysis, which is wh--

Yeah, but. :P
 1 vote:

fusillade762: gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.

Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.

Quick question: since the Arab Spring is one major driver of this the recent rise in this index, in how many Arab Spring-related conflict states has "lack of water" been identified as an underlying cause for the riots, etc.?

Just because something would cause unrest doesn't mean it has

/You know what else will cause riots?
//Aliens.
///I'm not saying it was aliens, but...
 1 vote:
Dirt nap here we come.
 1 vote:
The World Bank is being unknowingly conservative in its estimate of temperature rise. To date, the more extreme climate models have been the most accurate. A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.

This is why I'm no longer an environmentalist; the game is lost.
 1 vote:
The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.
 1 vote:
Thomas Malthus told me this will all work itself out in the end....one way or the other
 1 vote:
Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

China 8.2
India 2.1
USA 5.5
Rest of World 17.7
Total 33.5

Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

China 15
India 8
Rest of the world: ?
USA: ?
Total: Between 40 and 50

Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as much CO2 as the States. Imagine how dire the numbers will be when they reach the USA's level of emissions per person.

As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.

Also, since that will probably not happen, mankind being what it is - better at reaction than preparation, and since those two countries will probably realistically continue to increase emissions rapidly for years, maybe decades, I advise all of you to seek high ground in cold climates. The hills overlooking cold coastal cities will not only provide sanctuary from rising ocean levels, but are probably good candidates for increased property values as they get ever closer to becoming beachfront properties in warmer climes.

Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!

Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Submit a Link »

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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.