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.

(Science Blogs)   Good news: The climate "hockey stick" is a misnomer. Bad news: It should actually be the climate "reaper scythe." EVERYBODY PANIC   (scienceblogs.com) divider line 221
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4267 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-22 04:08:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.


Ouch, coming from someone who only responds with cartoons in a science thread, that cuts pretty deep.
 
2013-03-22 04:10:24 PM
A made up science designed to perpetuate itself.
 
2013-03-22 04:11:44 PM

George Walker Bush: A made up science designed to perpetuate itself.


There, there. The evil scientists will be gone soon.
 
2013-03-22 04:19:43 PM

T-Servo: THE GREAT NAME: T-Servo: The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Thanks for that. Hopelessly naive, but probably the best you could do. Bless.

Ouch, coming from someone who only responds with cartoons in a science thread, that cuts pretty deep.


That's... that's sarcasm isn't it! I'm very impressed. They said Americans couldn't do sarcasm, but you've proven them all wrong.
 
2013-03-22 04:21:16 PM

aerojockey: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

i.imgur.com

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.
 
2013-03-22 04:23:17 PM

FLMountainMan: So what's the solution?


Stop being carbon neutral, inhale twice for every exhale.
 
2013-03-22 04:23:39 PM

SVenus: aerojockey: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.

Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

[i.imgur.com image 625x389]
Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.


This experiment needs repeating with the genus cannibis sativa.
 
2013-03-22 04:30:18 PM

bmongar: We are having an unusually chilly day here in KC today so therefore there is no global warming.


Also, scientists speak colloquially to each other when they don't know their email is going to be stolen.
 
2013-03-22 04:33:25 PM
This is the real scythe curve, sort of:

upload.wikimedia.org

In this curve, human population is used as a proxy for 1) CO2 production by breathing (300 kg per annum); 2) CO2 equivalent production by human activities (as human energy use grows from 2,000 Kilocalories a day in the form of food to hundreds of thousands of Kilocalories a day in the form of food, animal labor, wind, water, solar, wood, dung, coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc.)

It should be noted that simply showing the exponential growth of human population is not the whole story.

Before the use of fire and the domestication of dogs, humans used 2,000 Kilocalories (average) of food energy a day. That was all. They produced 300 kg per person (average) a year of CO2. Even with the massive increase in population, those who still live like apes are not a problem. Neither are those who produce say, 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent a year (some of the billions who live on less than $2 a day). Almost all of the damage is done by those of us who are produced many tonnes of CO2 equivalent, to a total of over 30 billion tonnes a year.

To measure the real "hockey stick" you have to take this real hockey stick and multiply it by average energy use and thus pollution production per capita. It is only in the last two centuries that the number of people times the average tonnage of pollution produced per capita has become a problem.

In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time? Over, we are doomed to a nasty fall. Under, we will have to adjust our growth expectations and learn to live with a population that is no longer growing, and aging, often in poverty, but at least no longer growing exponentially.

If we don't over do it, we may survive, older but wiser. If we do over do it, we will survive, older but mostly deader.

The Reverend Thomas Malthus (we must stop growing) and John M. Keynes ("in the long run, we are all dead.") may combine forces against the perpetual optimism and cancerous growth of free market entrepreneurs, who are the rear-guard against sanity and frugality.

In any case, we will have to learn how to do more with less, because we have already made mince-meat of many world resources. 95% of the big fish are gone. More than 99% of the big mammals are gone. Big tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels will eventually go because people will either go green and go clean, or they will die from the consequences of wasting our finest farm land and some of our best people.

We will be short on water, but perhaps not desperately so. We will be short on some resources, but have plenty of others. Mining garbage dumps may become highly profitable. We are already sticking in straws and sucking out methane gas.

We can not count on the world warming by 1 degree (now impossible) or staying the same. We probably can hope for less than 8C, which would be catastrophic. I expect about 4.5 degrees here in Ottawa (because that figure hasn't changed much in the thirty years I've been here). I've seen what 4.5 degrees look like. It looks like my electricity bill in August--three times what it is in the lowest months of the year.

It looks like my food bill today versus a few years ago--about three times as high. It looks like my cable bill ($85 instead of the $11 phone bill I had when I moved in).

"The future is grave but it is not desperate", to quote a French General on the military situation. We have surrendered without a fight to a difficult future, but we have not lost the war on humanity and the environment just yet.

I expect that just staying in place is going to take all the running we can do. It is the Red Queen's end game. We'll have to run much harder than as hard as we can to get anywhere.

In other words, I think the guy who drew this temperature curve was crazy pessimistic. But was he crazy pessimistic enough?
 
2013-03-22 04:40:29 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


Not sure if joking.

But just in case you are, let me remind you of why every plant and goldfish you ever had died: you over-watered the plants (or forgot to water them at all) and over-fed the goldfish until the tank or bowl was a toxic sea of green sludge with goldfish so desperate for oxygen they were gasping for air.

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, as Dick Cheney said of education and its role in creating Democrats out of potential Republicans as incomes rise (and waistbands expand to the snapping point).

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.
 
2013-03-22 04:41:47 PM
Please, people.

Use winky icons.  ; )

I can't tell the jokers to the left of me from the fools to the right of me.
 
2013-03-22 04:42:10 PM
just thoughts (no snark intended)

if the world temperature goes up
shouldnt we expect more moisture in the air?
    if so shouldnt we see an increase of air pressure over time?

as world temperature goes up
  shouldnt we expect expansion of the layers of atmosphere?
  is the timberline going up or down or staying the same ?
 
2013-03-22 04:46:57 PM
Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that are all corrupt.

Them edumucated folk are out to git yer money!! Don't listen to their fancy math and science talk ... god made this here earth for you to do what ever you want! Freedom!!!

Ye-farking-haw ... the mouth-breathers have spoken.
 
2013-03-22 04:47:45 PM

Farking Canuck: Great. Another thread full of "Joe Sixpacks" who have been told by their politician that

scientists are all corrupt.

FIFM
 
2013-03-22 04:50:01 PM
It's spring and I still have 2 feet of snow in my backyard.  Bring it on.
 
2013-03-22 04:50:06 PM

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:


The planet Venus would like a word with you
 
2013-03-22 04:52:29 PM
kingoomieiii: Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Its relative proximity to the sun (0.7 AU) allowed the runaway greenhouse effect to start without an industrial revolution on its surface.

Average temperature 462° C.
upload.wikimedia.org


Whine whine whine...
It may be hot, but at least the humidity is really low, it's never windy & the temp is consistent...even on the poles.
Have you ever wished there were more hours in the day? Venus has you covered.
Get drunk and fall off the bar you were stripping on? Not to worry; you'll probably reach terminal velocity before you hit the ground.
 
2013-03-22 04:53:42 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I think what a lot of people don't understand is that more CO2 in the atmosphere can be a good thing. CO2 is food for plants and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the faster we can grow crops, which we need more of to feed the increasing population of the world.


The problem is that this CO2 increase may well be accompanied by alternating drought, flood, heat waves, and waves of new parasites. Not good for crops. We may well be heading for a future where outdoor food production is no longer viable.
 
2013-03-22 04:58:35 PM

brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?


You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.
 
2013-03-22 05:02:24 PM

draypresct: The US has enough food for its population.


For now. The climate change might do something about that.
 
2013-03-22 05:05:29 PM
In less than 100 years earth will be hotter than the sun!
 
2013-03-22 05:06:07 PM

DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I'm not sure how anyone with any brain cells can read the linked article/chart (top) without bursting out laughing. Look at the y axis. "Temperature Change Relative to 1961-1990 Mean". Surely this blog is a joke... no one could be that stupid, could they?

Yes, 1961 to 1990 was a magical time of perfect climate! All other times must be judged against it! We hath commanded it!
 
2013-03-22 05:08:16 PM

Dinki: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 813x555]


I want to make a GIF that expands from 1970 to 2010 to show the drop in temperature in the 1000 year preceding that time.

In short, your GIF is amusing ironic. I'm not sure if you realize this and are trolling, or if you're a derp and don't know.
 
2013-03-22 05:12:49 PM

RminusQ: Giltric: This is how it looks, unscaled on an alchohol thermometer.


[suyts.files.wordpress.com image 850x389]

"On an alchohol [sic] thermometer"? What the hell does that even mean? And why the hell would you use a bar graph?

And if you're going to try to drown out the actual changes that have occurred, why not go whole farking hog and use Kelvin? What the hell relevance does 0° F have to the discussion?


Wow that was an incredibly useful method to identify idiots like RminusQ here. Good job Giltric.

I'll try to use only small words so you can understand RminusQ. Thermometers use alcohol in them because mercury is toxic. When the ball of fire in the sky wakes up from nappy time, it heats the alcohol and makes it expand through the glass tube. The other graphs are scaled based on an deviation from the "average" where the average whatever temperature that particular leftist pulled out of their ass and decided was the ideal temperature. When instead of focusing on the deviation from the average you focus on the raw temperature data, the difference in temperature is so incredibly minuscule that you can't even really see it with the human eye on a chart.
 
2013-03-22 05:15:29 PM

Uncle Tractor: draypresct: The US has enough food for its population.

For now. The climate change might do something about that.


Production capacity could be cut in half and the US would still be OK.


/other locales my be less fortunate.
 
2013-03-22 05:15:43 PM

Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:


While what you said is true, the hockey stick chart is fake for another reason. That model was specifically constructed to give that particular output. You could put in baseball scores or lottery numbers and the model would output the same chart every single time.
 
2013-03-22 05:19:02 PM

SVenus: aerojockey: Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.


I can't tell from their short perspective piece, but I'm guessing that those plants were grown in the lab or under field conditions that are CO2-limited, not light- or nutrient-limited, unlike conditions in many real fields throughout the world.
 
2013-03-22 05:31:30 PM

Ambitwistor: SVenus: aerojockey: Lack of sunlight or nutirents in the soil is the limiting factor for plant growth in nearly all cases.

Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

I can't tell from their short perspective piece, but I'm guessing that those plants were grown in the lab or under field conditions that are CO2-limited, not light- or nutrient-limited, unlike conditions in many real fields throughout the world.


It's extra funny because he was replying to someone who said CO2 is almost never the limiting factor in plant growth.

Then, of course, these folks cite one thing that might be a benefit while forgetting all the downsides.  Drought, for example, will put a big damper on plant growth due to extra CO2.
 
2013-03-22 05:33:41 PM

Bullseyed: Albinoman: Even the hockey stick is bullshiat. Theres diminishing returns when you add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even Svante Arrhenius (the one who discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas) knew that it wouldn't run away, that the greenhouse effect would flatten out. 100+ years And they're still extropolating beyond %100 CO2.:

While what you said is true, the hockey stick chart is fake for another reason. That model was specifically constructed to give that particular output. You could put in baseball scores or lottery numbers and the model would output the same chart every single time.


Citation needed.

These other studies agree with Mann's hockey stick.

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-03-22 05:56:21 PM

FLMountainMan: So what's the solution?


We return to the caves. Oh, wait, wood fires create carbon dioxide.  OK, scratch the fires. We can all snuggle together to keep warm. The people on the outside will feed the lions, bears, etc. and those on the inside will survive.
 
2013-03-22 06:07:50 PM

draypresct: brantgoose: In reality, however, there is some good news. That population curve does not go up forever. Thanks to demographics (an aging population declining birth rates) it turns into what Wikipedia calls the logistics curve, or what I call the "S" or sigmoid curve. It levels off in about 40 or 50 years.

Human population will stop growing, gratifying the people who post the XKCD cartoon about extrapolation. The real question is this: will be over or under the carrying capacity of the Earth at that time?

You're treating Earth as a homogenous population. The question of whether we're over- or under-capacity (in terms of food and resources) is really a nation-by-nation question. The US has enough food for its population. North Korea is over its food-growing capacity. Whether these differences result in bloody conflict and destruction is a complex question not easily answered by simple statistical extrapolation.

Minor quibble side note: It's a "logistic" curve, not "logistics". Logistics has to do with military supplies and transportation.


"North Korea is over its food-growing capacity "

Ummmmm......  Wow. That's one hell of a misdirect there, Alice. Beautiful euphemism. Reality check: Could, just possibly, the reason that NK's population exceeds it's food-growing capacity is that it is a totalitarian hell-hole where privately owned farms and therefore private incentive don't exist?
 
2013-03-22 06:12:02 PM

Dinki: DesertDemonWY: TFA:  This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:

[scienceblogs.com image 500x336]

Reality:
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I love when people post this graph. You do know the 70s were considered a local minimum, cooler than the previous and post decades. You are just as bad as those who deny any warming.
 
2013-03-22 06:13:30 PM

T-Servo: I'm sure nothing will change with all this extra CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. It's not like the greenhouse effect is governed by the laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything...


Yes. The laws of physics. Such as absorption beimg logarithmic, not linear.
 
2013-03-22 06:15:28 PM
Here's my personal belief:

1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. But who cares?

That is, I don't think global warming will harm the average middle class American citizen much at all.  Sure, if you are a subsistance farmer in Africa you're probably farked.  Same goes for a bunch of different species of plants and animals that can only survive in a very narrow climate band.  Maybe rising sea levels will take out a few million dollar beachfront homes.  But the world will survive and even prosper.  It could even be a good thing for some people (farmers in colder climates, for example).

This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it.  You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax.  Yeah, that ain't happening.
 
2013-03-22 06:26:23 PM

Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.


Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.
 
2013-03-22 06:35:15 PM

Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.


There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.
 
2013-03-22 06:37:49 PM

Geotpf: Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


[Propaganda Detected]

[Citation Needed]

Why is stopping AGW the only option. What is wrong with mitigating some of the more extreme effects?
 
2013-03-22 07:12:09 PM

nekom:

I don't care what you call it, I don't trust computer models that complex.  As a computer professional myself, though admittedly not a climate expert, I feel there are FAR too many variables that we simply don't know to model something the size and complexity of the entire trophosphere.  Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the Earth isn't warming, science seems pretty confident that it is, I'm just not sure we're anywhere near the point in data collection or algorithms to project something like that.

"Science" is also pretty confident that the planet is cooling.  And, to complete the trifecta, "science" is also pretty confident that the planet is staying at the same temperature.  Oddly enough, all three of these statements are correct.  Which one you wish to believe depends upon the time scale you are using.  The temperature has remained essentially constant for the last 16 years.  Over the last three hundred years, the planet has been warming, and over the last 8000 years, the planet has been cooling.
 
2013-03-22 07:15:15 PM
Geotpf
1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. But who cares?


Uhhh... people who want the Earth to remain inhabitable for our descendants?
 
2013-03-22 07:15:59 PM

Farking Canuck: What is wrong with mitigating some of the more extreme effects?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

You don't want global temperatures to reach a tipping point.
 
2013-03-22 07:21:27 PM

T-Servo:

The whole idea that climate change is a hoax, a grand conspiracy by the world's scientists to gain research funding and media attention, is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Anyone who's ever worked at a university (including and especially grad students) knows how much discord, back-biting and petty jealousies exist in every department. On the one hand, as Carl Sagan wrote, it's a testament to scientific method that any progress is made at all, but on the other it's physically and mentally impossible for university faculty to cooperate to keep a secret. The grand conspiracy theory is giving scientists way too much credit.

/especially now that they've also fooled the military

Yes, when you make up the details, you can make a very stupid straw man, and laugh at it.  On the other hand, there are only a handful of corrupt scientists - a dozen or fewer.  And a WHOLE bunch of corrupt politicians...  but I repeat myself.
 
2013-03-22 07:29:08 PM

brantgoose:

I always think of the goldfish bowl when people say CO2 is plant food. So is plant food. Deadly, deadly plant food. Ever see what a dog turd does to a lawn? Burns the vicinity down to bare earth thanks to the rich load of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, etc. which it provides.

I've always said you can't tell shiat from carbon dioxide.  Thanks for the confirmation, and the load of natural fertilizer in your post...
 
2013-03-22 07:44:50 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.
 
2013-03-22 07:53:55 PM

brantgoose: In other words, I think the guy who drew this temperature curve was crazy pessimistic. But was he crazy pessimistic enough?



doom gloom and the dyers on the eve
 
2013-03-22 08:32:10 PM
This is total bullshiat. But go ahead, find a link to something reputable.

Out here in the real world, solutions to AGW take into account future energy consumption and standards of living. The "wedge" strategy is a good example.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
 
2013-03-22 08:35:46 PM

Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-22 08:38:51 PM

SunsetLament: Let me know when we're back to pretending we're all about to freeze to death again.


Time isn't a scientific publication and those articles were about rising prices of heating fuels anyway. The scientific community was publishing papers about global warming even then.
 
2013-03-22 08:54:56 PM

FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.


Trolling Wopat. Attention! Wopat, please report to conduct a fisting.
 
2013-03-22 09:01:07 PM

FloydA: Geotpf: Farking Canuck: Geotpf: This is a good thing, because there's no practical way to fix it. You would need every country on the planet to agree to something like a five dollar a gallon gas tax. Yeah, that ain't happening.

Right ... it's just like that famous Kennedy quote:

"It's not that we don't do this because it's easy ... we don't do this because it's hard!!!"*

* Ever so slightly paraphrased.

There's a difference between "really hard" and "farking impossible".

Basically, anything that would actually stop global warming would lower the standard of living of the world's population so much that it could never be passed in a country with a democratic government-and to work, it would have to be passed by every single country on the planet, today.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x414]


You OK Floyd? Now I ain't complaining, but there's suddenly a lot of girly arse in my GW thread. :)
 
2013-03-22 09:04:25 PM
Just explain to your grandchildren that the climate problems they face in 30 years are just fearmongering. They'll thank you.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report