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.

(LA Times)   Chipotle admits, that much like the rest of GW hysteria, the claim they are pulling guacamole due to climate change is "way overblown"   (latimes.com) divider line 189
    More: Followup, chipotles, guacamole, climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

3970 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:39 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 06:56:50 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Brostorm: Does anyone actually deny the earths temperature changes?

Much as alarmists call me a denier(or anyone who argues with them, even if it's a quibble about a specific statement).
Same way with someone with a different opinion in another thread is relegated to "troll".

I don't deny it exactly, but put forth that it's not anywhere near conclusive, certainly not proof.

For an example of the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

The planet exists and supports life, within a range.  There is no summing up that range with a single digit derived from an average.  It's not that the means of averaging is flawed, that much is pretty straight forward.  But attempting to draw meaningful information from the result, is naive at best, dishonest or willfully ignorant at worst.

Also, GIS: xkcd extrapolate.


Life will survive. I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.
 
2014-03-05 07:03:03 PM  

Andric: organizmx: First, consider the earth exists in an endless cycle of heating and cooling. It cools then heats up and cools again.

Yes, but what causes that?  It's not magic.


media.cinemasquid.com

//like a can of smashed assholes
 
2014-03-05 07:07:42 PM  
Nothing good goes with "GW", since George Washington shot that idiot out of her hoo hah.No sympathy for him, Rove, Perry, or that bunch of American robbing holes.
 
2014-03-05 07:12:16 PM  

Brostorm: helpdeskguy: Anyone who denies global warming exists also tends to:

1.   Own a brain but haven't used it in years
2.   Drive everywhere
3.   Watch Fox News
4.   Steal all their music from the internet
5.   Not read books
6.   Claim to date girls with big breasts
7.   Shop at Wal-Mart
8.   Walk past a homosexual and make rude noises/gestures
9.   Overstate the size of their genitalia
10. Love Big Macs

Does anyone actually deny the earths temperature changes?  The issue is the rate of change and man's impact and potential for change.


The rate of temperature change itself isn't as important as matching the observed changes with any similar changes in the underlying environmental factors. For as long as humans have been taking measurements, both solar output and atmospheric composition have shown changes which correlate well with changes in global temperature. In the past few decades, however, the correlation between temperature and solar activity has weakened while the correlation with CO2 has increased. The sun, of course, ultimately has a far greater effect on Earth's temperature than does CO2, but the fraction-of-a-percent change in solar output has less of an effect than the nearly 40% change in CO2.

We're still discovering what drives heat transfer throughout the biosphere, and until we know everything about the systems we're trying to model, the models will be less than accurate. For now, the generally accepted (and most obvious) explanation for the observed climate change is the observed anthropogenic CO2 change. If deniers of humans' ability to affect climate really wanted to make a scientific name for themselves, they'd be looking for other environmental factors and attempt to show a stronger correlation between changes in these factors and the observed changes in climate.
Instead, they're trying to make a political or corporate name for themselves by attempting to discredit the existing science without having any alternatives to offer.
 
2014-03-05 07:18:29 PM  

Mikey1969: So my takeaway from the article:

Chipotle said that they may have to pull some of their items, including guacamole or some of their salsas, or increase some prices due to climate change.

Then they discovered this year's avocado crops frozen concentrated orange juice futures are just fine.

So they said that they aren't going to have to pull their guac.

So I don't see what's "overblown" here. They made the statement, didn't they?

[consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com image 850x482]


Nothing is overblown, but the nutballs in the first thread and in right-wing blogs decided that lying about that statement was going to do....something.  I suspect that they will point to Chipotle keeping guacamole tomorrow as some sort of victory against libs.
 
2014-03-05 07:20:01 PM  
SnakeLee


Stop engaging in name callers with global warming deniers. The conversation should be about facts and observable evidence, not culture wars.


Agreed, like the fact that every time that church comes out with some sky-is-falling prediction, it fails to come true.

* no more snow (ironically enough claimed the year before a record snowstorm)
"Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives."
"Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and ... are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters-which scientists are attributing to global climate change-produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries."
"London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991." "Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community."
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is" and winter snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

* Food riots due to the USA unable to grow crops

* GW preachers ordering the cover up of scientific research that shows NO warming for 15 years

* nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com
--Paul Beckwith (PhD student / Sierra Club Canada)

* "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971

* Claim Jan. 1970: "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life Magazine, January 1970

* April 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

* 1970: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

* 1974: "... when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere-from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."
Later in the article, "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.

* 1989: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
FACT: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.


*1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."
FACT: Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation - rain and snow - has increased slightly over the century.

and confessions from the godfather of "global warming" admitting he was bullshiatting.
 
2014-03-05 07:28:54 PM  

organizmx: CheapEngineer: organizmx: Another useful idiot shilling for obama. Will do and say anything for immunity from the new world order's persecution of opponents.

Doesn't this fall under the new rulings where a public company has to serve everyone?
Let's see this 1%r get his butt dragged thru the mud for selecting who he wants to serve.

What in the F*CK are you blathering on about?

Jesus Hernadez, get a grip on yer ass.

First, consider the earth exists in an endless cycle of heating and cooling. It cools then heats up and cools again. Pick one and you will never be wrong. Humans tend to be egocentricc and still can't accept the earth does not revolve around them. We are not listed as an item on the earth's agenda. We have adapted to fit into a niche in an eddy on the river of change and we exist for a moment in time. If we cannot adapt to meet changing requirements we simply go away.

The problem is the claim that humans are causing the earth to heat up and the only solution is radical and destructive economic legislation mandated in a false effort to save the planet. The real intent is to make trillions in profit for a select few. Penis. It is the charlatans which muddy the waters and creative interpretation of science to support their agenda.

Rejecting the premise of human caused gloabal warming does not mean a lack of respect for the planet. Only a person with nefarious intent or blindly gullible would foster that black and white distinction to distract honest discussion and discover points of common interest.

When people point out science foretold of global cooling in the 60s they claim that was based on old technology and irrelevant. Penis. Guess what will be said of the scientific claims made today, 50 years later?

there are evironmental proponents and there are extreme radical environmental proponents so be sure to make the distinction when you mention the gains made over the years. Already HCGW laws have been enacted by the feds and are in effect in all the states. Penis. Those laws generate cash and huge amounts of it and do little else to protect the environment.

It seems the HCGW folks have become the earths advocate against the pexistence of human life on earth as ecomomies, quality of life and mere existence are threatened.

We send our batteries to China for recycling and for years had banned chemical and insecticides here and sold them worldwide.... the feds treat the environment as they did tobbacco, condem it and at the same time raise funding to support it.


Not penis, bullshiat...with a scoop of WTF for dessert.
 
2014-03-05 07:29:40 PM  
In this thread - people who can't differentiate between scientific research and sensationalist journalism.
 
2014-03-05 07:36:43 PM  
The statement by Chipotle is pretty standard stuff for an annual report.  They are required to include recognized threats to their business and possible contingencies.  Any potential disruption to a company's supply chain would qualify as a threat.

All of the BS in this thread about Climate Change?  No one can deny that climate changes.  Where liberals lose all credibility is in their fervent belief that the only solution is to tax the beejabbers out of anyone with money while giving 3rd world countries a pass on any environmentally disastrous practices they wish to pursue.  Carbon tax?  Really?  Exactly what will taxes do to reduce carbon dioxide?  They might make Al Gore richer but they're no fix for anything climate related.
 
2014-03-05 07:39:59 PM  

Pitabred: I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.


Good for you.

I don't.  I live in a place where it's easy to survive, except in the winters, and if we're warming, I say good!.

Sure, save the trees, we need the oxygen.  Sure, don't dump toxic waste, keep the water clean, etc.  Green- stuff? Cool, I like technology....but I do however, only, like it affordable.

I suppose I do have a vested interest in having mankind not being miserable, in the way of legislation based on belief.  Be it Christianity or the IPCC or PETA or some other zealot/fundamentalist group.

As gets passed around a lot( and this is a paraphrase mind you):

The urge to save is most often a veiled urge to control.

I'm a fan of liberty.  If that costs mankind in the end, I'm fine with that.

Think of it another way.  How many people should die trying to save a little girl who's being held hostage by armed and dangerous men.(or a POW, or whatever motivates you as just that wrong that people should die trying to rescue them).  Because sometimes, nothing is worth being in that state.  People would rather die than be enslaved.  It's that sentiment that motivates me on the subject at large.

If the cost of people being free is a future depreciation in numbers and a lot of suffering, so be it.

You see, I'm the opposite of some of the extreme liberals who almost hint at decreasing the population/technology as a means to save some vague notion of people in the future.

I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

That little girl, or that POW.  I'd probably try and save them if the opportunity were present(If I thought I might, succeed, mind you, not going to slit my wrist on command unless there was a certainty of success, I'm not pretending to be a badass or anything, but I understand and am comfortable with  service before self, I'd like to think I would at any rate, who know's if I'll be crapping my pants in fear or not though.).  I would NOT hold it against anyone who decided they could not do it.

Shortsighted?  Maybe.

Ignorant? Surely.
I do look at what I can though, in my downtime from work and hobbies more interesting but utterly useless(like fark, but hey, it keeps me sane).  What I've seen isn't the proof so many believers claim it is.  Even a goodly number of scientists, proponents of AGW, when talking about the subject, consistently say things like, "but more study is needed"(obviously, if it wasn't you'd be out of a job, huh?)/snerk
But seriously, you do hear a lot of "would seem to indicate" not so much the shouting from their soap box about proof positive....you know, good science, not what you see from Fark AGW Alarmist Brigade members.

*shrugs*
/and that's my requisite tl:dr relaxing post after a long day at work
 
2014-03-05 07:58:18 PM  

slotz: cubic_spleen: I want to thank subby for providing a thread where the climate change deniers can bleat their FOX News talking points while they wipe the latest Limbaugh felch from their chins. Keeps the rest of Fark clear for people with actual intelligence.

Like you?  You're ACTUALLY intelligent?  Phew!  Good to know!


Why, yes; yes, I am. Makes it downright painful to read the pants-on-head retarded posts of the AGW deniers.
 
2014-03-05 08:12:20 PM  

MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.


As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?
 
2014-03-05 08:20:31 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.

As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?


Damn, if only there were some way to investigate other forms of generating energy.  Maybe I'm just being long winded with this, but if we want a bright and shining future for the nuclear family, a future full of the Earth's warmth, we really should think about other ways, even if they're corny.
 
2014-03-05 08:22:15 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: Once you outlaw coal, then what?


That may be ahead of their plan.  Currently they're working on taxing the companies that use it for power.  Which of course gets passed directly onto the consumer whom that power company has a monopoly over.

Good for the state, bad for the people.  The people in the here and now.

A much faster way to dystopia than the conservatives are acheiving by grasping onto moral/biblical justifications for law.(ie gay marriage/rights, women's rights, (or rather, anti- those...)etc).
 
2014-03-05 08:23:10 PM  
Doing something about it would downgrade AGW into the 'hysteria' category.
So... what have we effectively done about it so far? Is global warming fixed already and nobody told us?

Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?


No, "global warming" didn't work. Ass-sniffing retards couldn't figure out the concept of warming and don't give a shiat about the globe beyond Murica. Furiously jerking off to how they're gonna get even with 'regulations' is too distracting. So unless the issue can be framed into some kind of nosy moral disgrace, it's gonna remain too highbrow and foreign to get anything done about it.

The most effective way to combat global warming right now is to tank the US dollar in hopes that europe will surpass us in prosperity. Then maybe they'll manage to work something out on their own dime and send us an invoice in the form of outrageous tariffs and sanctions.
 
2014-03-05 08:23:37 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?


My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."
 
2014-03-05 08:25:13 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc. By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this. We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT. My question: Once you outlaw coal, then what? What about the other 60% of GHGs? Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate? Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding? What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?


+1
/Powder River, let 'er buck!
 
2014-03-05 08:27:24 PM  
Fark is kind of pathetic today...
 
2014-03-05 08:31:18 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.

As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?



You're highlighting one of the problems yourself here. Anthropogenic CO2 is the largest driver of anthropogenic climate change, and the factor that we can most realistically do something about. It's therefore the logical place to start.

That aside, you should be made aware that current efforts to reduce greenhouse gases includes methane, the CO2 emissions from volcanoes are tiny compared to anthropogenic ones, and emissions from metabolic processes are generally carbon neutral (unless you also consider additional energy requirements).
 
2014-03-05 08:32:05 PM  

Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."


Bad analogy is bad.

Bullets are dangerous, they kill people.  If we decrease the size of them by half, they'll only be half as dangerous and half as many will die!

If you're short on time, do you only wash half your face?

Sometimes all or nothing is the only way to go about it.  Why do anything if there won't be a significant impact?
 
2014-03-05 08:44:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

Bad analogy is bad.

Bullets are dangerous, they kill people.  If we decrease the size of them by half, they'll only be half as dangerous and half as many will die!

If you're short on time, do you only wash half your face?

Sometimes all or nothing is the only way to go about it.  Why do anything if there won't be a significant impact?


Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?  First off, lower caliber bullets are less likely to kill so smaller rounds would in fact result in fewer shooting deaths.  As for the face washing, if my face was very dirty and I didn't have time to wash the whole thing, yes I would only wash part of it rather than not wash at all.

Regardless, our effect on the climate is not a an all or nothing thing.  This idea that because reducing or eliminating Anthropogenic CO2 won't completely eliminate all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere then we shouldn't bother doing anything at all is just idiotic.  If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?
 
2014-03-05 08:46:51 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

Bad analogy is bad.

Bullets are dangerous, they kill people.  If we decrease the size of them by half, they'll only be half as dangerous and half as many will die!

If you're short on time, do you only wash half your face?

Sometimes all or nothing is the only way to go about it.  Why do anything if there won't be a significant impact?



Unfortunately, your analogy is even worse.  Climate change isn't an all-or-nothing sort of thing. You can't shoot half a bullet, while temperature does not increase in discrete amounts. Temperature is a continuous variable, not a discrete one.
 
2014-03-05 09:10:03 PM  

Teufelaffe: Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?


Why else would I post such excellently bad examples?

First off:
A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun.
Half of a 9mm slug will still put a nice hole in you, possibly pass completely through, and that's pretty much what's dangerous about bullets, the holes and the bleeding.  How bad it is doesn't depend so much on projectile size, but where you're hit.

Second(face): I said half, not part. If you walked around town with half a dirty face you'd get just as many odd looks, fail job interviews.

But I digress, I was being ridiculous because you were being ridiculous.

Teufelaffe: If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?


But, it will get rid of all of the smell if you kick them out(all).  If they keep it up, no, it won't get rid of the smell(half measure)[ie you'll still be uncomfortable, maybe even worse off because you alternate fresh to acrid, so you never acclimate].  If you do nothing, the smell won't change(doing nothing).

Another bad analogy, but it's farts, I couldn't resist.

If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.

If every single effort is a betterment, why don't you get off the internet right now and live off the grid? Safely get rid of all technology and don't get any more, no modern fabrics, no metal-working, no fires, etc.  You're part of the problem.

So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.
 
2014-03-05 09:12:40 PM  

umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.


Humans broke it with their waste and greed. It's up to them to fix it.
But of course there are those like you who refuse to take responsibility...
 
2014-03-05 09:13:23 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Pitabred: I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.

Good for you.

I don't.  I live in a place where it's easy to survive, except in the winters, and if we're warming, I say good!.

Sure, save the trees, we need the oxygen.  Sure, don't dump toxic waste, keep the water clean, etc.  Green- stuff? Cool, I like technology....but I do however, only, like it affordable.

I suppose I do have a vested interest in having mankind not being miserable, in the way of legislation based on belief.  Be it Christianity or the IPCC or PETA or some other zealot/fundamentalist group.

As gets passed around a lot( and this is a paraphrase mind you):

The urge to save is most often a veiled urge to control.

I'm a fan of liberty.  If that costs mankind in the end, I'm fine with that.

Think of it another way.  How many people should die trying to save a little girl who's being held hostage by armed and dangerous men.(or a POW, or whatever motivates you as just that wrong that people should die trying to rescue them).  Because sometimes, nothing is worth being in that state.  People would rather die than be enslaved.  It's that sentiment that motivates me on the subject at large.

If the cost of people being free is a future depreciation in numbers and a lot of suffering, so be it.

You see, I'm the opposite of some of the extreme liberals who almost hint at decreasing the population/technology as a means to save some vague notion of people in the future.

I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

That little girl, or that POW.  I'd probably try and save them if the opportunity were present(If I thought I might, succee ...



Come on now. Don't you have children (or may want some someday)? Anybody that you care about other than yourself?

Something you might want to consider is to give some thought as to exactly why one should consider the freedom of others to be important. At some point in your thoughts, you will most likely come across something kind of like universal human rights - "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" sort of thing. You may even realize that the same foundation for valuing 'freedom' also values the lives of others.

Let's hope you get that far or towards something similar. Maybe a more productive discussion could occur after that.
 
2014-03-05 09:22:49 PM  
Damnhippyfreak     

(ignored: GW alarmist, fallacy queen, dishonest)
 
2014-03-05 09:29:25 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?


Why else would I post such excellently bad examples?

First off:
A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun.
Half of a 9mm slug will still put a nice hole in you, possibly pass completely through, and that's pretty much what's dangerous about bullets, the holes and the bleeding.  How bad it is doesn't depend so much on projectile size, but where you're hit.

Second(face): I said half, not part. If you walked around town with half a dirty face you'd get just as many odd looks, fail job interviews.

But I digress, I was being ridiculous because you were being ridiculous.


Unfortunately, you go on to explain yourself why what  Teufelaffe said is not ridiculous at all:

omeganuepsilon: If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.


As you correctly state, climate change isn't an all-or-nothing thing, unlike the misguided bullet analogy you put forward.


omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?


But, it will get rid of all of the smell if you kick them out(all).  If they keep it up, no, it won't get rid of the smell(half measure)[ie you'll still be uncomfortable, maybe even worse off because you alternate fresh to acrid, so you never acclimate].  If you do nothing, the smell won't change(doing nothing).

Another bad analogy, but it's farts, I couldn't resist.

If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.


To keep up the analogy, some farts are worse than others, and opening the window a bit, even though it won't completely get rid of the smell, is better than nothing.  Again, solutions need not be all-or-nothing. It's not somehow a choice between a perfect world and exactly the status quo.


omeganuepsilon: If every single effort is a betterment, why don't you get off the internet right now and live off the grid? Safely get rid of all technology and don't get any more, no modern fabrics, no metal-working, no fires, etc.  You're part of the problem.

So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.


You really need to get away from this simplistic black-or-white kind of thinking. That one does not agree with or would like to change something does not mean that one has to take the most extreme action.

If you're going to argue along these lines, you could also state that since you don't like our current political system, you should be be in armed revolt or you're part of the problem, or if you don't like poverty you should give away all your things or you're part of the problem, or that if you believe in 'freedom' you should be using all your money to free slaves or you're part of the problem.

Again, black-or-white thinking, like what you're engaged in leads to some strange places. Accepting a bit more nuance or more possibilities may be in order.
 
2014-03-05 09:33:06 PM  

Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."


I'm actually a fan of renewables, they're great (except when they're not).  I'm not sure why killing eagles, bats and song birds is any better than spewing CO2.  I gotta admit that coal is a dying fuel, but the world is a market economy and coal is abundant.  Those brown people in India aren't going to forgo their electric toaster because you think it's a good idea.  When coal is dead here in the U.S., we'll keep shipping our mine's coal to Korea and Japan and to the little old dude down the street using it to heat his garage.

I'm actually in favor of a price on carbon because it will drive technology to keep coal around longer here in the U.S.  After that happens, you need to think about the other 60% of GHGs and their sources and bash them.  Making coal the scapegoat is short-sighted and ignorant.
 
2014-03-05 09:38:47 PM  

alcoholwasinvolved: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

I'm actually a fan of renewables, they're great (except when they're not).  I'm not sure why killing eagles, bats and song birds is any better than spewing CO2.  I gotta admit that coal is a dying fuel, but the world is a market economy and coal is abundant.  Those brown people in India aren't going to forgo their electric toaster because you think it's a good idea.  When coal is dead here in the U.S., we'll keep shipping our mine's coal to Korea and Japan and to the little old dude down the street using it to heat his garage.

I'm actually in favor of a price on carbon because it will drive technology to keep coal around longer here in the U.S.  After that happens, you need to think about the other 60% of GHGs and their sources and bash them.   Making Reducing our dependency on and use of coal the scapegoat is short-sighted and ignorant just the beginning.


FTFY

People who refuse to take any steps to address a problem because the first step doesn't fix everything are short-sighted and ignorant.
 
2014-03-05 09:45:20 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak     

(ignored: GW alarmist, fallacy queen, dishonest)



Well, you can claim such, but without backing it up in any way it holds little weight.

An alternative explanation is that you're irrationally hiding from arguments that effectively challenge your assumptions and are disengaging in order to preserve said assumptions.

Hopefully you'll come around and realize that rational discussion involves honestly looking at the positions you yourself hold, not hiding from things that challenge them. You're more than welcome to respond rationally if and when you're able. I'm not hostile and I don't bite :)
 
2014-03-05 09:49:29 PM  

LeroyBourne: It's not like there they're managers wonder around the dining room asking people if their there food is ok.  Just bring your own damn guacamole.  There's They're's is bland to me anyway.



FTFY.

/serious discussion requires serious grammar
 
2014-03-05 09:49:47 PM  
Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.
 
2014-03-05 09:52:11 PM  
Just an excuse to shore up prices because global WAWA is BS
 
2014-03-05 10:06:18 PM  

Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.


If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2014-03-05 10:17:29 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


The dishonest farkwit who tells a bald faced lie like you just did?
 
2014-03-05 10:17:30 PM  

GleeUnit: Man, this thread never stood a chance.


It's like a man with fifteen alts decided to make them all shiat on the thread al at once.
 
2014-03-05 10:17:42 PM  
I guess I shouldn't assume everyone has been in Beer threads.
 
2014-03-05 10:21:07 PM  
Marking a whole lot of new people in dipshiat grey ITT. I guess the difference is this one is on the main page, instead of the geek tab like most of the AGW threads?
 
2014-03-05 10:23:58 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Pitabred: I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.

Good for you.

I don't.  I live in a place where it's easy to survive, except in the winters, and if we're warming, I say good!.

Sure, save the trees, we need the oxygen.  Sure, don't dump toxic waste, keep the water clean, etc.  Green- stuff? Cool, I like technology....but I do however, only, like it affordable.

I suppose I do have a vested interest in having mankind not being miserable, in the way of legislation based on belief.  Be it Christianity or the IPCC or PETA or some other zealot/fundamentalist group.

As gets passed around a lot( and this is a paraphrase mind you):

The urge to save is most often a veiled urge to control.

I'm a fan of liberty.  If that costs mankind in the end, I'm fine with that.

Think of it another way.  How many people should die trying to save a little girl who's being held hostage by armed and dangerous men.(or a POW, or whatever motivates you as just that wrong that people should die trying to rescue them).  Because sometimes, nothing is worth being in that state.  People would rather die than be enslaved.  It's that sentiment that motivates me on the subject at large.

If the cost of people being free is a future depreciation in numbers and a lot of suffering, so be it.

You see, I'm the opposite of some of the extreme liberals who almost hint at decreasing the population/technology as a means to save some vague notion of people in the future.

I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

That little girl, or that POW.  I'd probably try and save them if the opportunity were present(If I thought I might, succee ...


Come on now. Don't you have children (or may want some someday)? Anybody that you care about other than yourself?

Something you might want to consider is to give some thought as to exactly why one should consider the freedom of others to be important. At some point in your thoughts, you will most likely come across something kind of like universal human rights - "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" sort of thing. You may even realize that the same foundation for valuing 'freedom' also values the lives of others.

Let's hope you get that far or towards something similar. Maybe a more productive discussion could occur after that.


Just as an FYI, you're responding to a denalist who's masquerading as someone who wants to learn about ACC so he can bring up talking points and areas of "concern."
 
2014-03-05 10:27:40 PM  

HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

The dishonest farkwit who tells a bald faced lie like you just did?


Hey, I'm just the messenger. If you think the woodfortrees.org data index is a lie maybe you should bring that up with them

BTW, has anyone else noticed the colder it gets, the more name calling you hear from the AGW morons?
 
2014-03-05 10:28:14 PM  

dstrick44: DoctorCal: Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac

What orifice was that list pulled from?


This one.
 
2014-03-05 10:45:26 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001.  I wonder why you started it at 2001 and not 2000?
woodfortrees.org
Ah, that would be why.
 
2014-03-05 10:48:30 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001. I wonder why you started it at 2001 and not 2000?


when you count to ten, do you start at zero?
 
2014-03-05 10:56:26 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: You may even realize that the same foundation for valuing 'freedom' also values the lives of others.


In other words, "Freedoms are not absolute. They come with responsibilities".
Unfortunately, those who choose to deny climate change want all of the first without any of the second.
 
2014-03-05 10:57:15 PM  

DesertDemonWY: I created this alt just for this thread: Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001. I wonder why you started it at 2001 and not 2000?

when you count to ten, do you start at zero?


When you count to 4,696 do you start at 366?  Because that's exactly what you did.  I'm sure it was a simple error on your part and had nothing to do with the fact that showing the data starting from 2000 doesn't match your narrative.
 
2014-03-05 11:09:09 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Brostorm: Does anyone actually deny the earths temperature changes?

Much as alarmists call me a denier(or anyone who argues with them, even if it's a quibble about a specific statement).
Same way with someone with a different opinion in another thread is relegated to "troll".

I don't deny it exactly, but put forth that it's not anywhere near conclusive, certainly not proof.

For an example of the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

The planet exists and supports life, within a range.  There is no summing up that range with a single digit derived from an average.  It's not that the means of averaging is flawed, that much is pretty straight forward.  But attempting to draw meaningful information from the result, is naive at best, dishonest or willfully ignorant at worst.

Also, GIS: xkcd extrapolate.


Or, the increase in global average temperature is a convenient way to summarize the issue and isn't the end of the discussion but rather the start.

From there we can talk about regional impacts of warming, like increased drought in the American SW or water insecurity in areas that rely on glacier.
And then we can talk about why your "it doesn't effect me so I don't care" stance is monumentally stupid in our globalized world.
 
2014-03-05 11:35:41 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Pitabred: I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.

Good for you.

I don't.  I live in a place where it's easy to survive, except in the winters, and if we're warming, I say good!.

Sure, save the trees, we need the oxygen.  Sure, don't dump toxic waste, keep the water clean, etc.  Green- stuff? Cool, I like technology....but I do however, only, like it affordable.

I suppose I do have a vested interest in having mankind not being miserable, in the way of legislation based on belief.  Be it Christianity or the IPCC or PETA or some other zealot/fundamentalist group.

As gets passed around a lot( and this is a paraphrase mind you):

The urge to save is most often a veiled urge to control.

I'm a fan of liberty.  If that costs mankind in the end, I'm fine with that.

Think of it another way.  How many people should die trying to save a little girl who's being held hostage by armed and dangerous men.(or a POW, or whatever motivates you as just that wrong that people should die trying to rescue them).  Because sometimes, nothing is worth being in that state.  People would rather die than be enslaved.  It's that sentiment that motivates me on the subject at large.

If the cost of people being free is a future depreciation in numbers and a lot of suffering, so be it.

You see, I'm the opposite of some of the extreme liberals who almost hint at decreasing the population/technology as a means to save some vague notion of people in the future.

I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

That little girl, or that POW.  I'd probably try and save them if the opportunity were present(If I thought I might, succee ...


TL;DR of that: Fark you, I got mine.
 
2014-03-06 12:09:23 AM  

MyRandomName: Liberals don't understand modeling is not a hard science and is prone to errors associated with assumptions.


Said the scientist.  Oh wait, let's go ask real scientists!

/you can turn the lights out when you're done reading
//oh.  reading.  right.  well, it comes with a pretty graph.
 
2014-03-06 12:17:16 AM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Yes it is. It may be happening but the most predictions about its effects have failed to take place.


This.  Human failure to model complex system behaviors =/= failed thesis.

Edison tried 1600 filament materials before finding one that would work for the lightbulb.  It took over 40,000 pages of notes before he figured out how to make the bulb last at least 40 hours.  I'd say that the global climate system is a little more complicated.
 
2014-03-06 12:20:16 AM  

brimed03: Contrabulous Flabtraption: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Yes it is. It may be happening but the most predictions about its effects have failed to take place.

This is dumb.  Human failure to model complex system behaviors =/= failed thesis.

Edison tried 1600 filament materials before finding one that would work for the lightbulb.  It took over 40,000 pages of notes before he figured out how to make the bulb last at least 40 hours.  I'd say that the global climate system is a little more complicated.


FTFM.  Sometimes I edit as well as you understand science.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report