whidbey:
What you should be looking at is the science relevant to now, not trying to amateurishly patch together something that makes you look like you know WTF you're talking about.

Again, there is no debate in the scientific community. Man-made climate change IS occurring, and it's a big deal.

Going out of your way to "prove" otherwise just makes you look like a tool. Yeah. I know you didn't want to hear that.

So what prestigious university is your degree in climate science from? If the answer is "none" then we're both amateurs. I suspect, other than the occasional meteorologist, everybody on this thread is amateurs. Thing about debates though... each side presents evidence and facts, and base arguments around that evidence. Regurgitating conclusions, even conclusions by approved "experts" is rgumentum ad verecundiam.

If it is your position there is no "sides" to this topic -- just your beliefs, which are right, and everyone else's, which are wrong... then you shouldn't have involved yourself in the conversation.

HighZoolander: Farking Canuck: HighZoolander: I have no problem with increased openness and transparency in science

Deniers only ask for this for climate science. It is the only one that their conspiracy says is full of money grubbing liars.

All the other fields of science are still fine.

That's true. I'm sure no one demanding to review the source code for the data processing/analyses that led to the discovery of the Higgs boson.

I think this has more to do with the fact no political party is proposing sweeping policy changes due to its discovery. If, suddenly, the Democrats or Republicans stated: "due to the discovery of the Higgs Boson, we are submitting this Bill to Congress in order to raise taxes Internet purchases by 20%, provisions for everyone's harddrive to inspected by the IRS, and prohibit individuals from anonymously criticizing the government... or we'll all SLIP INTO A BLACK HOLE" then I'm sure a lot of people would be demanding to review the source code. :p

m00: So what prestigious university is your degree in climate science from? If the answer is "none" then we're both amateurs. I suspect, other than the occasional meteorologist, everybody on this thread is amateurs. Thing about debates though... each side presents evidence and facts, and base arguments around that evidence. Regurgitating conclusions, even conclusions by approved "experts" is rgumentum ad verecundiam.

Using that logic, then I would conclude you are on board with everything TFA is stating.

If it is your position there is no "sides" to this topic -- just your beliefs, which are right, and everyone else's, which are wrong... then you shouldn't have involved yourself in the conversation.

There are no "sides" to this topic, you are correct. Man-made climate change is real. There is no debate on this. And the reason I involve myself in this conversation is because I get more than just a little bit tired of the kind of disinformation posters like you tend to spew on the subject while passing it off as fact.

m00: So what prestigious university is your degree in climate science from? If the answer is "none" then we're both amateurs.

The difference is that you're amateurishly coming to conclusions different from the scientists who already know about the paleoclimate events you're talking about, which should cause you to at least examine why you're coming to different conclusions.

Bell-fan: and we don't know how fast that actually happens since we've never lived through one as a race and documented it.

OH WAIT, WHAT ABOUT THOSE ICE CORES THOUGH.

Ambitwistor: m00: So what prestigious university is your degree in climate science from? If the answer is "none" then we're both amateurs.

The difference is that you're amateurishly coming to conclusions different from the scientists who already know about the paleoclimate events you're talking about, which should cause you to at least examine why you're coming to different conclusions.

Show me an article where a scientist has stated that our current epoch (Holocene) has not been the coldest on earth for at least 300 million years. And in the warmest epoch in that last 300 million years (Eocene) we have the earliest fossils from all modern mammals.

Think about that.

A world that was almost 15 degrees warmer supported (early versions) of all modern mammals. And they lived everywhere from the equator to the north pole to Antarctica. Meanwhile today we're confined to narrow geographical zones in terms of what's liveable/comfortable.

I would be concerned if the earth wasn't warming. If you look at geological cycles, we're at the geological minimum in terms of global temperature. This is fact.

whidbey: There are no "sides" to this topic, you are correct. Man-made climate change is real. There is no debate on this. And the reason I involve myself in this conversation is because I get more than just a little bit tired of the kind of disinformation posters like you tend to spew on the subject while passing it off as fact.

So what, you think the graph I posted is made up or fake or disinformation? Or is it just inconvenient for you to go back more than 15 years to look at a trend?

chiefsfaninkc: Could someone please tell me exactly what the optimal climate/temp of the earth is?

Thanks

This is a really good question.

m00: Show me an article where a scientist has stated that our current epoch (Holocene) has not been the coldest on earth for at least 300 million years.

Sigh. We've already been through this. It's irrelevant whether the Earth has been warmer or colder in the past. What matters is what change will mean for us in the future. The point is that the Earth isn't going to be a "tropical paradise" (your semi-correct, semi-incorrect claims about Eocene equable climates notwithstanding). And even if it did, that would actually have enormously detrimental ecological, economic, and geopolitical impacts if it occurred on century timescales. For example, far from "animals being able to live everywhere", huge numbers of species would be exterminated because they can't adapt fast enough and/or are prevented from moving by human development (on top of the existing non-climate stressors they're already subject to).

m00: chiefsfaninkc: Could someone please tell me exactly what the optimal climate/temp of the earth is?

Thanks

This is a really good question.

It's actually a completely misguided question. In many senses, the optimal temperature is "whatever the climate now happens to be", because that's what we and ecosystems are adapted to. Over time, we/they can adapt to other climates, and maybe this "equilibrium solution" could be better or worse than the present climate, but the transient effects are generally going to be bad.

Ambitwistor: m00: chiefsfaninkc: Could someone please tell me exactly what the optimal climate/temp of the earth is?

Thanks

This is a really good question.

It's actually a completely misguided question. In many senses, the optimal temperature is "whatever the climate now happens to be", because that's what we and ecosystems are adapted to. Over time, we/they can adapt to other climates, and maybe this "equilibrium solution" could be better or worse than the present climate, but the transient effects are generally going to be bad.

Pretty much this. Life will go on regardless of how the climate changes, and humans are pretty tenacious critters--I'm sure we'd be among the survivors of a global ecological catastrophe triggered by relatively abrupt climate change. Just because we'll probably survive doesn't mean that we will be happy, healthy, numerous, or prosperous, however.

Ambitwistor: m00: chiefsfaninkc: Could someone please tell me exactly what the optimal climate/temp of the earth is?

Thanks

This is a really good question.

It's actually a completely misguided question. In many senses, the optimal temperature is "whatever the climate now happens to be", because that's what we and ecosystems are adapted to. Over time, we/they can adapt to other climates, and maybe this "equilibrium solution" could be better or worse than the present climate, but the transient effects are generally going to be bad.

I kind of disagree.

Keep in mind, at several times during our recent history (I mean, after we were fully formed homo-sapiens) the human species bordered on extinction. Without looking it up, I think at point we were down to 10,000 breeding pairs. There was a great article a few months back (also in the slate) that explains how we ended up with 2 less chromosomes than other primates. And yes, this was due to a very, very small worldwide population. And this is in a "modern climate" geologically speaking. We overcame these challenges because of our capacity to make tools, and use those tools to shape our environment. Which is kind of why we are even having this discussion. So no, apparently a modern climate is not very habitable for us; ironically, this is why we are having this conversation on the Internet with written language rather than pointing and grunting.

Biologically speaking I think the "optimal" climate is one in which we don't need tools and industry to shape our environment in order to survive.

Also if we were really serious as a species about not destroying our own habitat, we would be far more concerned with deforestation and pollution than global warming. What's going to destroy is draining aquifers of fresh water, and rapidly depleting energy sources... not a few extra degrees on the thermometer (coastal flooding notwithstanding)

Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: Ambitwistor: Who is dismissing? Who said anything about dismissing?

turnerdude69

Then reply to him with the whole "dismissing" argument, not me.

If you ask me to clarify what I was talking about, and what I was talking about was a response to someone else, then don't get pissed off at me, dumbass.
When I quoted you, I quoted a specific statement about your personal and creative rules that skeptics must live by, or some such. That part that I quoted was patently ridiculous, and really, the only point I'm discussing with you as such.

Sorry, you don't get to wear the "skeptic" tag just by being ignorant. I understand that accountants, garbage men, etc. don't have scientific qualifications. They also aren't qualified to judge the correctness of a body of science. Skepticism can't be based on pure ignorance; then it's just prejudice masquerading as skepticism.

Pretending as if I'm some other poster you have a grudge against and attributing his arguments to me will win you no points.

I didn't attribute his arguments to you. YOU attributed my responses to you. You asked me about my position on skepticism, I told you it wasn't valid when you're dismissing fields of science. I never brought YOU into it.

Welcome to Fark! Anything you post can be quoted by others. It's the reason we're here, discussion with random people at random times. If you want privacy, I suggest you go elsewhere.

I didn't ask for privacy, I asked that you pay attention to what's being discussed and not try to turn it into a discussion about your personal beliefs when it's not.

I have a science degree, and I don't think that the climate modeling fits the actuallity that we are experiencing.

Therefore, my knowledge trumps your ignorance.

You don't have too like it, you don't even have to accept it, indeed you, and others of your ilk should continue shouting down every opposing thought.

It'll win your cause adherents and will not cause rational people to avoid you at all.

m00: So what, you think the graph I posted is made up or fake or disinformation? Or is it just inconvenient for you to go back more than 15 years to look at a trend?

That graph is completely irrelevant to the present day's findings.

Why can't you just accept what 97% of the current information is telling us? Why are you so resistant to the fact that mankind is adversely affecting climate through industry? The information is right in front of you, but you choose to look for some smoking gun that isn't even there. That's called denial.

doubled99: A you dumb farks STILL fighting over climate change?!? Really?

It's really quite simple

NO ONE CARES. IT DOESN"T MATTER IF YOU ARE RIGHT. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. WE WILL NOT ADJUST OUR LIVES AT ALL. WE WILL SIMPLY ADAPT TO WHATEVER NEW WEATHER PATTERNS EMERGE.
GIVE IT UP.

I'd almost rather sooner than later, at that. We could all do with a little rattling of the status quo. Mayhap it could be a somewhat uniting force. We cannot unite under the cause of delaying that change, that we know, maybe we could when the change is rammed down our throats(IE work together to advance civilization instead of stopping the inevitable). Or maybe, some of our less civilized radicals will not be able to adapt and hence lose some, or all, of their populace, or at least some of their motivation, "fark even we think it's too hot for this bullshiat!" (fat chance, it'll be "We are suffeing god's wrath for not killing enough heathens, let's redouble our efforts" or some such, but I can dream..)

I am curious as to the high end plateau. Will our nudge push it even higher or will it equal out?

I could do without the winter season as-is(Of course, I live in the north..ymmv). Sure, maybe it helped us evolve as a society, but I think we've managed to eek out as much as we can from intelligently adapting to the 4 seasons.

Slam1263: You don't have too like it, you don't even have to accept it, indeed you, and others of your ilk should continue shouting down every opposing thought.

It'll win your cause adherents and will not cause rational people to avoid you at all.

That was my point up thread somewhere where I mentioned intelligent and rational answers. (I'd give props to the "warmers" that conversed as such with me, but my pages are split up by 200 and I'm too wore out to view all and then search.) [Disclaimer: "warmers" is just a generic term at this point, I mean nothing by it]

Now, that guy could have insulted me up and down and I wouldn't have cared, that is part of the banter on fark I find entertaining. Why? Because his discussion of the actual arguing points I asked about was rational and intelligent.

Yeah, I eventually avoided, permanently, a couple of posters here because they brought nothing to the table. It's that mindless "shouting down" that really puts me off, just repugnant behavior.

m00: Sea levels will rise, but a lot more land in the interior will become habitable (or more comfortable). If this were the Eocene, we could be comfortable on beaches in the North Pole, hanging out with palm trees in Antarctica, or living life comfortably in the tropics. It's amazing to me that when the earth has experienced global warming in the past, the data has been that global temperatures have evened out into something that's very pleasant for our species.


1. How much will it cost to replace the global infrastructure that gets wiped out by rising sea levels?

2. Earth isn't warming uniformly. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet, which reduces the temperature gradient that drives the jet stream. The results include a slower progression of weather systems (for example, heat waves that used to last 2-3 days may last for 4-5 days) and more blocking patterns in which the jet stream actually reverses direction (remember Sandy?), as well as a less zonal and more amplified jet stream pattern (leading to more extreme incursions of arctic and tropical air masses and greater temperature fluctuations).

Not pleasant. Not pleasant at all.

Frederick: Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable.

Only by political puppets. The science is very clear.

common sense is an oxymoron: 2. Earth isn't warming uniformly. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet, which reduces the temperature gradient that drives the jet stream.

This is a good thing. It means the tropics won't be unlivable, and generally describes an earth more in line with geological history. This business of permanent ice sheets covering 10% of the earth is only a very recent development -- 2.5 million years. If you look at temperature fluctuations, glacial periods have rapidly sped up to the point we're in a constant state of glaciation. Global warming is just returning us to geological norms.

whidbey: m00: So what, you think the graph I posted is made up or fake or disinformation? Or is it just inconvenient for you to go back more than 15 years to look at a trend?

That graph is completely irrelevant to the present day's findings.

translation: facts I find inconvenient to my worldview are irrelevant.

Graph is from 2001. Present day findings do not dispute it. Unless you have some evidence that directly disputes it...

Why can't you just accept what 97% of the current information is telling us?

In your mind, "current information" means "information that can be narrowly interpreted to reinforce my existing beliefs."

Why are you so resistant to the fact that mankind is adversely affecting climate through industry? The information is right in front of you, but you choose to look for some smoking gun that isn't even there. That's called denial.

Here we go. This is your agenda. Your agenda is anti-corporatist, and "global warming" is the evidence you have constructed to fit your preexisting agenda. Whereas general rational thought works the other way.

Frederick: Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable.

Um, no. Try again.

m00: In your mind, "current information" means "information that can be narrowly interpreted to reinforce my existing beliefs."

LOL

m00: Your agenda is anti-corporatist, and "global warming" is the evidence you have constructed to fit your preexisting agenda. Whereas general rational thought works the other way.

There's no way you're a real poster.

Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

Frederick: whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

I used "debatable" exactly one time. You ignored my question entirely. I dont think you even understand what I've written. Are you suggesting there is a pie chart with the level of influence humans have had on climate change? Because I find that doubtful.

Not a pie chart

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate
From that link:




Here's another way to put it:
 

Here's another way to put it: "It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

And again for the visual learners (black line is the observed temperature):

whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

1. The Church of AGW does not debate those who are inferior to it.
2. Anyone who disagrees with any of the tenets of the Church of AGW are, by definition, inferior.
3. Therefore, the tenets of the Church of AGW are, by definition, not debatable.

/this exercise in circular logic has been brought to you by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and the Roman Catholic Church
//adapted to modern times, of course

Tatterdemalian: whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

1. The Church science of AGW does not debate those who are inferior to it. endlessly repeat long debunked talking points.
2. Anyone who disagrees with any of the tenets of the Church of AGW are, by definition, inferior. science is welcome to challenge it. When their challenges are shown to be idiotic propaganda they will be mocked.
3. Therefore, the tenets of the Church of AGW are, by definition, not debatable. uneducated idiots are unable to defent their positions and the the stupidity of their arguments is pointed out every time they regurgitate them.

/this exercise in circular logic has been brought to you by the anti-science movement of America
//not adapted ... they never adapt

Tatterdemalian: The Church of AGW

derp

whidbey: Tatterdemalian: The Church of AGW

derp

I just think that its placement immediately beneath some really informative graphs makes it particularly precious.

The more I read on the topic, the more I want more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plant life flourishes, and therefore animal life does.

More fertile land becomes usable for more of the year. More humidity makes for our more arid landscapes(deserts) having more moisture.

In fact, I'd like to hear more of the downsides.

omeganuepsilon: The more I read on the topic, the more I want more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plant life flourishes, and therefore animal life does.

For the plant and animal species that are not wiped out.

omeganuepsilon: More fertile land becomes usable for more of the year. More humidity makes for our more arid landscapes(deserts) having more moisture.

Some areas whereas other areas will become deserts. And it is not much use for areas like the Canadian shield to have long growing seasons because there is almost no soil up there. Meanwhile, the bread-basket of the US is turning into another dust bowl and all the good soil is drying up and blowing away.

omeganuepsilon: In fact, I'd like to hear more of the downsides.

No you don't ... you want to repeat long debunked talking points like this one about how GW will actually make things better. You completely ignore all the down sides including prime agricultural areas rendered useless, destruction from higher energy weather systems and loss of habitable shoreline areas.

That's some strong projection right there.

Farking Canuck: You completely ignore all the down sides including prime agricultural areas rendered useless

Citation?

I asked for information and discussion. You're prediction that I'll dismiss it all out of hand is utterly baseless.

omeganuepsilon: In fact, I'd like to hear more of the downsides.

Eradication of the world's coral reefs, leading to a collapse in fisheries, world-wide.

omeganuepsilon: I asked for information and discussion. You're prediction that I'll dismiss it all out of hand is utterly baseless.

Other than the fact that you didn't actually discuss any of his points, that is.

You can try mine, if you like.

Deucednuisance: Other than the fact that you didn't actually discuss any of his points, that is.

You can try mine, if you like.

Not replying =/= dismiss(as in implied denial), in the context of discussion.

I asked for information. If I want to discuss a point, I will. If I don't that doesn't mean I "ignore" it as he claimed. it's entirely possible I am not discussing it because I see it as a valid point.

Now, I'm not going to discuss his points, because he's proven that he thinks he's already got me nailed. He is not worth talking to because of his auto-convict attitude.

Deucednuisance: Eradication of the world's coral reefs, leading to a collapse in fisheries, world-wide.

You make it sound so sudden. Is the reef itself dependent on temperature?

I thought the argument here was the fresh / salt water mix would change(from melting ice at the poles) and make most life there not able to survive.

While I admit that could be a real possibility, depletion of life in the oceans, how many years of a progress is that?

I hardly ever eat fish but as a treat, and then it's usually freshwater fish. What is the real world impact of there being progressively less and less fish in the ocean?
We've already faced some of that with hunting some right up to the extinction limit. Would it be possible, with more farming land, and better crops(allowing for more red meat) to compensate for the lack of fish?

omeganuepsilon: You're prediction that I'll dismiss it all out of hand is utterly baseless.

Actually it is based on your posting history. Just looking at how I have you tagged tells me that any attempt to engage you in an adult conversation will be a waste of my time.

This is not even taking into account the fact that the items you wish to "discuss" are just more long-debunked talking points.

omeganuepsilon: You make it sound so sudden. Is the reef itself dependent on temperature?

Yes, absolutely. Google "Coral bleaching" for more details. It's entirely temperature dependent.

omeganuepsilon: I thought the argument here was the fresh / salt water mix would change(from melting ice at the poles) and make most life there not able to survive.

Salinity changes would be a problem, but what that would do to ocean currents is more problematic, still.

omeganuepsilon: While I admit that could be a real possibility, depletion of life in the oceans, how many years of a progress is that?

Depends on who you read. Less than a century, possibly a couple of decades.

Point is, they're already dying. I got my C-card in Key Largo in 1991. I don't dive around there any more because there's nothing left to see. I never got to see the groupers as big as Volkswagons that were fairly common in the `50s. You can barely find a grouper at all any more, because the reefs where their fry develop are dead and gone. It's already happening.

omeganuepsilon: I hardly ever eat fish but as a treat, and then it's usually freshwater fish. What is the real world impact of there being progressively less and less fish in the ocean?

OK, this is where I stop believing that you aren't just faking it. Seriously? You can even ask that question? You're really that unaware, and you pretend to want a serious discussion? Because you don't eat much of it, it's not much of a problem? How does 15% of the world's average protein consumption grab ya?

omeganuepsilon: Would it be possible, with more farming land, and better crops(allowing for more red meat) to compensate for the lack of fish?

I dunno. 15% of the world's protein consumption? Factoring the rapid rise in population? You tell me.

Sucks to be you, Japan. And pretty much all of the Pacific... Nordic culture's gonna be interesting, too.  There's hardly any Atlantic Cod left, anyhow. Besides, once we finish of the sharks, the ecosystem's gonna collapse, anyhow, so who cares, right? Been a hell of a ride!

m00: common sense is an oxymoron: 2. Earth isn't warming uniformly. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet, which reduces the temperature gradient that drives the jet stream.

This is a good thing. It means the tropics won't be unlivable, and generally describes an earth more in line with geological history. This business of permanent ice sheets covering 10% of the earth is only a very recent development -- 2.5 million years. If you look at temperature fluctuations, glacial periods have rapidly sped up to the point we're in a constant state of glaciation. Global warming is just returning us to geological norms.


Problem is, human civilization didn't develop in an environment of "geological norms" (whatever that means...do a search for "snowball earth" or "35% atmospheric oxygen" and let me know what you consider to be "normal" conditions).

Do you deny that it will cost trillions of dollars to relocate infrastructure as sea levels continue to rise? Do you also deny that increasingly erratic weather patterns associated with a weaker jet stream will cost trillions more?

Deucednuisance: Because you don't eat much of it, it's not much of a problem?

I didn't say that. I simply asked a question because I didn't know the answer. Yeah, I'm a bad man and a liar that way.

In the context of the other questions it was more than fair. Including the question that followed, as it is inevitable one way or another, the only question in reality is when. I'd rather ask the questions now than pretend they're irrelevant, that's actual willful ignorance.

I asked because I didn't know where to look, not because I'm living blissfully in ignorance. You did know where to look for some of it, so thanks for that. I touched up on that up thread, we can't all simply know any given topic, and none of us know everything. There is simply not enough time or mental ability for humans to be experts in biology, physics, math, electronics, etc etc. But most of us can become an expert in one field or another, that's the only reason we've gotten as far as we have, the only reason that affords us the ability to have this conversation. If we didn't borrow knowledge from eachother, we'd all be living much more simple and ignorant lives. Raise butcher and cook your own food, make your own clothes, farm your own vegetables, etc. Talk about bleak..

i thought that since you proposed the idea, that you would know what to look for. You did. Let's not read into it more than that.

And on that note, from your link:
Supplying over three billion people with at least 15 percent of their average animal protein intake.

Almost half the people on earth, fish is 15% or more of their diet.

That is more than your summation would have, maybe, but lets agree that it's a large number.

Most that do eat fish for a large share of their diet do it because it's the cheapest route available, not because it's the only thing available. It's a change that I think human's could overcome readily within years, and that's if it were a sudden loss of the food source. Less if we all actively worked to aid the affected area's. Not that we would, but we could.

Yeah, it would be somewhat demanding, but certainly not insurmountable.

omeganuepsilon: we can't all simply know any given topic, and none of us know everything.

This is why we listen to the experts in the fields. Except, of course, when elaborate conspiracies have painted them as all dirty, money-grubbing liars.

Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: we can't all simply know any given topic, and none of us know everything.

This is why we listen to the experts in the fields. Except, of course, when elaborate conspiracies have painted them as all dirty, money-grubbing liars.

Wut?

If you're going to behave like a Westboro Baptist that's protesting a gay black jew's funeral, that's how you're going to get treated. You're setting yourself up to be laughed at and largely ignored, except to like minded bigoted individuals.

If you KNOW how I'll respond, why keep doing it?(rhetorical question) Pretty obvious I'm not doing much of what you claim here, anyone who's read the thread know's that much.

I'm not making claims of conspiracies, not claiming ALL scientists are liars(some =/= all and I'm not even saying people are faking these reports/studies, in fact the only specific case I mentioned was vaccines/autism)

I ask a question, receive an intelligent answer, even gave credit a time or three. I've acceded many points, and asked, what then?

You're suffering from some indignant zealotic disorder common among the religious and other people with moral causes. You seek strife and villification wherever you want, even fabricate faults, so that you can have the argument that you want, instead of the discussion that's there.

in this thread you've gone so far as to tell me what I think and why I'm here.
Farking Canuck: No you don't ... you want to repeat

Farking Canuck: You completely ignore all the down sides

You didn't even give me the chance to ignore the downsides. You claim it as if I already had, even as you posted them. It's as if your sense of time itself is broken, unable to differentiate the past from the future, your predections from possible reality.

On that note, I'me avoiding you. I'm ignoring you. If someone else wants to talk about other points, so be it. All further communication with you will cease.

I take pleasure in letting you down, and look forward to avoiding you in the future as I have a couple others in this thread. By all means, continue to troll me with an alt if you so choose, I won't be able to tell the difference until you get on your soap box to denigrate me without actually discussing my points.

Farking Canuck: This is not even taking into account the fact that the items you wish to "discuss" are just more long-debunked talking points.

Yes, they are talking points. That is what fark is for, if you don't want to talk about them, don't. No one is forcing you to. No one is going to care if you don't post, in fact most of us don't care if you do post. So what are you really after here?(rhetorical, again)

Newsflash: Every thread on fark is a re-hash of past re-hashes. Get over it or get out. They are simple talking points, things to discuss. Not theoretical proofs of your near religious feelings of self-righteousness. Just simple discussion I have not had before. If YOU have, good for you, you can move on to something more entertaining(which is apparently lingering to troll).

Well Thanks everyone, I have made a decision.

It was easy to do so, based on the opinions on this site.

I can believe in a divine force in the cosmos, but not manmade religions, because of the amount of blind faith involved to be in compliance with material beliefs, that man is inherently evil, and must change their ways.

I can believe in climate change, especially one that appears to be based on extra planetary variables, but not the blind faith many are putting into the idea that modern man is inherently evil, and must change their ways.

Again, I will state that the governments of the world doesn't see this as a problem to be solved, or they would be concentrating on this issue above all else. They are willing to jump on the tax scheme, but as a skeptical person, that doesn't surprise me.

I keep hearing about how we should invest more into "green energy", especially solar.

Solar is one of the dirtiest forms of power storage we can produce. Solar power manufacturing will consume three times the energy, which solar power will release.

By comparison wind, tidal, geothermal, or hydro will produce power, at an exponential rate compared to cost of manufacture. Siteing these tends to damage the vary ecosystem we are trying to protect, so there is that externality.

Fossil fuels coal, oil, gas, and nuclear energy, even with the pollution hazards are simply more reliable. Even though they have some of the very same externalities.

Modern nuclear power, no one wants to talk about an energy source that would reduce or CO₂ by 40%, if we replaced all other forms of energy production.

Why? It's a bigger bogyman than Karl Rove.

I haven't figured out why the Neo-Luddites want everyone to go back to the land, as long as they don't have fires to warm themselves, or to cook their food, or for light and protection. I suspect it is because they are not serious; it is really more about control.

As a person with despotic tendencies, I understand the need to control others. Hell, I respect those that come right out and state their case for it. It is the reason I like ITGs, trolls, and lurkers more than the white knights.

Who as ever heard of a revolutionary that has freed their chosen cause, and then given up the power to control said same cause? Right, in the annuals of human experience it hasn't happened.

This rocky ball we live upon will heat up, cool down, and if science can be trusted, be vaporized in about four billion years from now, or next week, or the week after that, but definitely no later than the last prediction by some as yet unknown prophet who will be the right broken clock at the right time.

Until then, keep arguing, it does amuse me so.

Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: In fact, I'd like to hear more of the downsides.

No you don't ... you want to repeat long debunked talking points like this one about how GW will actually make things better. You completely ignore all the down sides including prime agricultural areas rendered useless, destruction from higher energy weather systems and loss of habitable shoreline areas.

Here is a link about the positives and negatives of global warming. Yeah, there are way more negatives.

Also check out the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change From that link:
the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.



Don't bother with omeganuepsilon, though, he's "just asking questions" and a "skeptic" yet somehow you'll never have enough information to change his mind and he won't read any links you give him.

This was a gem from another CC thread.

omeganuepsilon: We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Slam1263: but definitely no later than the last prediction by some as yet unknown prophet who will be the right broken clock at the right time.

Ha. HA.

I touched on that same thing earlier in the thread. Even if the evidence is correct, and it may well be. Even the conclusion. But so many of the followers have that taint about them of following some other cause, some cause that was certain right up until the point that it's time had passed and nothing has happend.

Now it's Global Warming(as a generic term), and there is no real Best By: date. No time to be proven wrong, not really. It's the ultimate end of days scenerio for them. The sciences even lend some credibility to it.

That's why there are SO many warmers(again, simply a generic term). The size of the party is artificially inflated with followers of other belief systems that have proven defunct. Sure explains the zealotic outrage.

omeganuepsilon: Slam1263: but definitely no later than the last prediction by some as yet unknown prophet who will be the right broken clock at the right time.

Ha. HA.

I touched on that same thing earlier in the thread. Even if the evidence is correct, and it may well be. Even the conclusion. But so many of the followers have that taint about them of following some other cause, some cause that was certain right up until the point that it's time had passed and nothing has happend.

Now it's Global Warming(as a generic term), and there is no real Best By: date. No time to be proven wrong, not really. It's the ultimate end of days scenerio for them. The sciences even lend some credibility to it.

That's why there are SO many warmers(again, simply a generic term). The size of the party is artificially inflated with followers of other belief systems that have proven defunct. Sure explains the zealotic outrage.

Ok, so you go from failing to understand any downside to eliminating fish from the ocean to being able to confidently assert things about the science of global warming in no time flat.

This is exactly why no one should take your 'just asking questions' shtick even remotely seriously.

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: Slam1263: but definitely no later than the last prediction by some as yet unknown prophet who will be the right broken clock at the right time.

Ha. HA.


This is exactly why no one should take your 'just asking questions' shtick even remotely seriously.

Tip the waitress, try the veal?

/oh wait, you're serious.
//let me laugh harder.

Baryogenesis: Don't bother with omeganuepsilon, though, he's "just asking questions" and a "skeptic" yet somehow you'll never have enough information to change his mind and he won't read any links you give him.

Yeah this is why I don't 'respectfully answer his questions'. He plays the "I'm just asking reasonable questions" card but time has shown over and over that he has no interest in the answers. It is just another attempt to seed unwarranted doubt from the anti-science crowd.

I feel like Dr. Azimov wrote this just for omeganuepsilon and his ilk:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov