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.

(Reuters)   100 different governments and thousands of scientists will be meeting in Japan this week to perpetuate the global warming myth   ( reuters.com) divider line
    More: Followup, global warming, Japan, Rajendra Pachauri, climate change, scientists, models of scientific inquiry, animals and plants, food supply  
•       •       •

621 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Mar 2014 at 1:57 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-23 12:37:08 PM  
I'm believe after fully understanding how dire the situation is they'll walk away from this meeting with an actionable plan that will be implemented immediately...and I suspect next week McDonalds' employees will be making 15 an hour, weed will be legal, and the top tax rate will be 90%.
 
2014-03-23 01:07:30 PM  
Only 40 percent of Americans and 39 percent of Chinese view climate change as a major threat, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 39 nations in 2013.

Welp, that ends that idea.
 
2014-03-23 02:16:51 PM  
Its doesn't matter. Our flavor of Capitalism means we will see it to its end game and not do a damned substantive thing about it.
 
2014-03-23 02:20:20 PM  
"climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.
 
2014-03-23 02:21:11 PM  

MayoSlather: I'm believe after fully understanding how dire the situation is they'll walk away from this meeting with an actionable plan that will be implemented immediately...and I suspect next week McDonalds' employees will be making 15 an hour, weed will be legal, and the top tax rate will be 90%.


Silly liberal pining for a return to the Eisenhower Administration.
 
2014-03-23 02:26:45 PM  
Wait, is Algore going to fly there in his private B-767? Wouldn't using Skype have been a nice non-CO2 heavy method of getting concerned scientists together? Is  An Inconvenient Truth II (Now It's Called Global Cooling) due out soon? WillMichael Moore direct?

/ Chinese cow farts cost less than Calf. cow farts!
// It's weather, not climate, when you experience it!
/// Global Sea levels rising, just ask those dutchmen on their dikes and Salt pond workers in SF Bay!
/V God will pay for all the CO and CO2 from Volcanoes and Forest Fires! It's organic and natural! But atheists will have to make up the difference if there is no $$$ in the bank!
V Time for a write-in campaign for Obama in '16!
 
2014-03-23 02:29:19 PM  
I, for one, am enjoying the long slow slide into hell.
 
2014-03-23 02:31:38 PM  
"Global warming will disrupt food supplies, slow world economic growth and may already be causing irreversible damage to nature..."
"Only 40 percent of Americans and 39 percent of Chinese view climate change as a major threat, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 39 nations in 2013."


So there is no need to panic, you won't be the one starving, wanting to breath clean air or drink clean water. You're covered.
 
2014-03-23 02:40:34 PM  

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


Why is it that deniers always hang their hats on easily disprovable lies?

I am not going to explain this one again but I'll give you a hint - G.W, Bush.
 
2014-03-23 02:47:19 PM  

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


This cold/mild/hot season is proof of climate change...unless you use it to counter my point. Then you are an unenlightened noob. And it is ok for Al Gore to not act like it is real.
 
2014-03-23 02:48:41 PM  

Sgygus: I, for one, am enjoying the long slow slide into hell.


I'm almost that point of "eh fark it all, I'll be dead when the shait really hits the fan."

/sucks for my family and friends' kids tho
 
2014-03-23 03:01:46 PM  
Global Climate Change is a real threat to our food supply.
The food supply is one thing the world governments can control.
 
2014-03-23 03:05:02 PM  
This thread never had a chance.
So here's a random comic that I enjoy:
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-23 03:07:35 PM  

Sgygus: I, for one, am enjoying the long slow slide into hell.


Said since the dawn of man in one way or another...
 
2014-03-23 03:11:17 PM  
That's a little bright.

i158.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-23 03:19:08 PM  
Humanity is too stupid a species to survive - I for one am grabbing the popcorn and enjoying the end for its entertainment value.
 
2014-03-23 03:24:24 PM  

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


Do you enjoy being a dupe of cynical shills like Frank Luntz? That notion that "climate change" is a diversionary tactic by those stupid liberals is... Well, here:

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.
"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.



So stuff a sock in it, you willful ignoramus. Better yet, keep spouting your manufactured drivel, so we can better recognize you as part of the problem.
 
2014-03-23 03:27:27 PM  
Even Japan can't meet their emission goals since shutting down their nuclear reactors after Fukishima.

And you think China is going to stop throwing up a couple coal power plants a week?

There's no international political will to reduce emissions. The EU and US can tell China to cut down emissions but then China will rightly say the average Chinese still uses far less energy than the average American or European.

Enjoy the show.
 
2014-03-23 03:50:33 PM  
It's a conspiracy of everyone against those few brave people who know better despite what evidence tells them.
 
2014-03-23 03:50:36 PM  

beer4breakfast: Even Japan can't meet their emission goals since shutting down their nuclear reactors after Fukishima.

And you think China is going to stop throwing up a couple coal power plants a week?

There's no international political will to reduce emissions. The EU and US can tell China to cut down emissions but then China will rightly say the average Chinese still uses far less energy than the average American or European.


Western companies (including US of course) sell the coal coke to China because the West has regulations against using it here. It's extremely unlikely to ever happen, but we could have some influence by stopping those exports. China probably wouldn't be too happy about that, though.
 
2014-03-23 03:55:06 PM  

a particular individual: sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.

Do you enjoy being a dupe of cynical shills like Frank Luntz? That notion that "climate change" is a diversionary tactic by those stupid liberals is... Well, here:

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environm ...


Heh, of course he isn't going to believe it.  We hear about the "consensus" and the "settled science", yet they couldn't predict the "pause" that we keep hearing about.  And those polar ice caps that were supposed to disappear years ago have done anything but.  Oh, and who can forget that "weather isn't climate", except when it supports climate change (if that is even the case, since there seems to be little agreement on whether we will have more extreme weather events or less).

Face it, the climate is far more complex than we believe it to be, and most of the "science" around it (as though science is simply the truth, not the search for the truth) is really just an attempt at branding that the data doesn't back up.

But whatever you or any others who buy into it want to think, doesn't bug me. I'll be just fine with you taking this as a troll if you don't want to open up your mind to information that falls outside of your world view.
 
2014-03-23 03:55:14 PM  
"Climate lasts all the time and weather only a few days."  - Mark Twain quoting an unknown child
 
2014-03-23 03:59:18 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: This thread never had a chance.
So here's a random comic that I enjoy:
[img.fark.net image 750x750]


Your comic is stupid, the direction of the finger makes no sense.
 
2014-03-23 04:07:15 PM  

06Wahoo: Face it, the climate is far more complex than we believe it to be, and most of the "science" around it (as though science is simply the truth, not the search for the truth) is really just an attempt at branding that the data doesn't back up.


Dunning Kruger at its finest. You don't understand the science so it must be wrong.
 
2014-03-23 04:24:33 PM  
I'm going to watch it on my big-screen tv. I'll also be running my ac full blast, as my tv gets pretty hot.
 
2014-03-23 04:40:06 PM  
They will be sitting around navel gazing and conspiring how to fleece America.
 
2014-03-23 04:48:15 PM  
If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.
 
2014-03-23 04:58:00 PM  
100 different governments

Looking at the work that they've done on copyright and free trade, I think it's safe to assume that whatever they do, it'll be bad for you and me.
 
2014-03-23 05:00:22 PM  

jjorsett: If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.


OR, God forbid, some super bug accidentally escapes some lab somewhere and, OOOPSIES, 5 billion dead in a pandemic. so sorry. It'll be bad but look on the bright side. Climate change and man made global warming will be cured!!

The ends justify the means, right?
 
2014-03-23 05:06:52 PM  

jjorsett: If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.


Most people aren't bothered by global warming because of what it will do to the planet, but in fact most people are bothered because of what knock on effects that will have on humans. So no, billions of people starving to death because of global warming isn't what everyone standing up and saying "let's do something about global warming before it's too late", wants.
 
2014-03-23 05:11:32 PM  
climatesanity.files.wordpress.com
Deniers really are missing the point, I'll be glad when some small pox gets loose and kills those unvaccinated dicks off finally once and for all.
 
2014-03-23 05:34:39 PM  

Slaxl: jjorsett: If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.

Most people aren't bothered by global warming because of what it will do to the planet, but in fact most people are bothered because of what knock on effects that will have on humans. So no, billions of people starving to death because of global warming isn't what everyone standing up and saying "let's do something about global warming before it's too late", wants.


I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.
 
2014-03-23 05:59:46 PM  
Global climate change a.k.a. seasons.
 
2014-03-23 06:02:14 PM  

Spare Me: I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.


The science says that humans have pushed the GHG levels out of balance. That's the thing about science, it is still true even if you don't believe it.

The "only way" you describe is just concentrated stupidity. Nobody sane is recommending that. There are plenty of proposals that will have a positive effect without mass death ... sorry to burst your psychotic bubble.
 
2014-03-23 06:03:30 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Global climate change a.k.a. seasons.


Seasons are part of climate. Your ignorance is showing.
 
2014-03-23 06:04:18 PM  

Spare Me: Slaxl: jjorsett: If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.

Most people aren't bothered by global warming because of what it will do to the planet, but in fact most people are bothered because of what knock on effects that will have on humans. So no, billions of people starving to death because of global warming isn't what everyone standing up and saying "let's do something about global warming before it's too late", wants.

I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.


No, the challenge is to keep the planet habitable for humans. The Earth will be fine. The Earth's biology will be fine, if in for a radical shift.

No sane ecologist is arguing for a mass human extinction, although many would like to see birth rares go down.
 
2014-03-23 06:07:32 PM  

Farking Canuck: Spare Me: I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.

The science says that humans have pushed the GHG levels out of balance. That's the thing about science, it is still true even if you don't believe it.

The "only way" you describe is just concentrated stupidity. Nobody sane is recommending that. There are plenty of proposals that will have a positive effect without mass death ... sorry to burst your psychotic bubble.


Okay Einstein. How do you feed 7+ billion people without Fossil Fuels? Riddle me that.
 
2014-03-23 06:11:29 PM  
Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.
 
2014-03-23 06:15:18 PM  

Spare Me: Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.


Nuclear power.
 
2014-03-23 06:39:12 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: No sane ecologist is arguing for a mass human extinction, although many would like to see birth rares go down.


That's the first baby steps. I know it sounds callous and I hate even thinking about clear logic sometimes. The best I have to offer is two words, "population bubble".

It's not Star Date 2415. We have a whole generation thinking everything is free. There has been wondrous advancements in communications over the last few decades but we don't have "replicators" to get free meals from, unlimited free energy to beam around at will or no need for money. We don't live in a time where you can laze around and scratch your butt and navel gaze.

Just my opinion.
 
2014-03-23 06:40:26 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Spare Me: Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.

Nuclear power.


Environmentalists: BZZZZT No. It does make fertilizers or pesticides either (food). Oil does.
 
2014-03-23 06:43:11 PM  
sorry: "doesn't"
 
2014-03-23 06:50:24 PM  

Spare Me: Farking Canuck: Spare Me: I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.

The science says that humans have pushed the GHG levels out of balance. That's the thing about science, it is still true even if you don't believe it.

The "only way" you describe is just concentrated stupidity. Nobody sane is recommending that. There are plenty of proposals that will have a positive effect without mass death ... sorry to burst your psychotic bubble.

Okay Einstein. How do you feed 7+ billion people without Fossil Fuels? Riddle me that.



Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.
 
2014-03-23 06:56:19 PM  

make me some tea: Only 40 percent of Americans and 39 percent of Chinese view climate change as a major threat, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 39 nations in 2013.

Welp, that ends that idea.


On the bright side, only a few percent of those people elected Obama. Or Bush. Or Clinton. Or Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon (nobody elected Ford).

Number of people who voted in the 2000 Presidential Election: 108 million. Votes for Bush: about 48 million, IIRC. More people voted for Al Gore, and three million voted for Ralph Nader, who is not the Bush-friendliest candidate in history. Less than 45% of one third of the US population can choose a President. Of course the game is rigged to favour conservatives, Republicans, rural ninnies, and the 1%, but hey, there is still progress despite all those hobbles placed on the system. It's like Homer Simpson dragging the Stone Cutter Stone of Triumph:  amazingly, it moves!

Ignorance, denial and stupidity are major enemies of mankind. And yet, the world turns.

One of the cards we have up our sleeves is the fact that conservatives will buy into anything once it starts making money or saving money. Some of the greenest homes in America are owned by denialists who just want hot water or AC on the cheap.

They may deny climate change but they adopt technologies because they save money and keep the lights on and the water flowing on a regal scale.

Conservatives are a constant harassing force in the rear guard of civilization, progress, science, literacy, education, intelligence and facts, but they follow along despite themselves. You can't be a rear guard if you can't keep up. They will adopt some of the new ideas and claim they were always theirs. They will quietly adopt the new technology without admitting they were ever against it. And so it goes, and so it goes.
 
2014-03-23 06:59:07 PM  

Spare Me: AliceBToklasLives: Spare Me: Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.

Nuclear power.

Environmentalists: BZZZZT No. It does make fertilizers or pesticides either (food). Oil does.


Well, the goal is not to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, just dramatically reduce our use of them.  Anyways, no reason why nuclear can't power everything mechanical on a farm (and MASSIVE scale is the only ecologically-friendly way to go).

As far as environmentalists are concerned, well actually I think many left-wing enviros are kinda where you are - except they think we can all have our own little farm and do everything locally.  Which might work if the world population were like 500 million or so - although it would be far more polluting than nuclear for 15 times that population..

At any rate, nuclear is far safer than almost any other kind of power, although we ought to avoid building plants in areas with histories of massive earthquakes, tsunamis and Godzilla attacks.*

Two other components are important: (1) renewables, which can help quite a bit during peak consumption times; (2) GMOs, which radically increase crop yields (but of course are also susceptible to left-wing derp).

Can we do it?  Is it enough? I don't know.  But I prefer (A) "give it a shot" to (B) "just let 6 1/2 billion die cause we're gonna fail anyway."

*yes, I know Godzilla is blowback
 
2014-03-23 07:03:41 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.


Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.
 
2014-03-23 07:08:23 PM  

Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.


Oh, so you are anti-science. Well, we ain't gonna get out of this without good science, so you as much a part of the problem as anti-nuclear left-wingers (some of whom think global warming is a scam perpetuated by the nuclear power industry!)
 
2014-03-23 07:14:04 PM  

Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.


Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point.


This really isn't the case. Just as nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels, nobody is talking about somehow "fixing the climate at a certain point". Even the most optimistic plans recognize that we're already committed to a certain amount of change given extant change and from current and past emissions, and of course action on anthropogenic climate change does not somehow affect other drivers of climate. I'm sorry, but you seem to be basing your opinion here on some very poor information.


Spare Me: I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.


Now after the previous point this makes two very fundamental and basic misconceptions about the topic you've demonstrated in as many posts.  What you should be first asking yourself is how informed are you really are about the topic, and what are you truly basing your opinion on.  If it's your perception of a "scam" or conspiracy, you probably shouldn't be basing your view of scientific information on such.
 
2014-03-23 07:15:21 PM  

Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.


So, you won't stop beating your wife until your neighbors stop beating theirs? What a fine fellow you are.
 
2014-03-23 07:31:46 PM  

Spare Me: Okay Einstein. How do you feed 7+ billion people without Fossil Fuels? Riddle me that.


Nobody is suggesting removing all use of fossil fuels. Strawman argument.

Spare Me: Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.


Please try to separate the science of AGW from the political argument of what to do about it. The science is very clear with massive amounts of evidence from many different fields all independently leading to the same conclusion: Global warming is real and man's massively increased output of CO2 is what has pushed the system out of balance (aka AGW).

As to what to do about it, that is a whole different issue. Deniers try to conflate the two so they can introduce ridiculous conspiracy theories ... like some of the ones you've mentioned. But the fact is that they are two completely different topics.
 
2014-03-23 07:38:42 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

So, you won't stop beating your wife until your neighbors stop beating theirs? What a fine fellow you are.


As long as these other countries get a free pass, America downgrades. Stop them first and we'll talk.
 
2014-03-23 08:07:13 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Global climate change a.k.a. seasons.


You've managed to figure out seasons. You should probably publish a paper.
 
2014-03-23 08:07:22 PM  

Spare Me: Solid Muldoon: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

So, you won't stop beating your wife until your neighbors stop beating theirs? What a fine fellow you are.

As long as these other countries get a free pass, America downgrades. Stop them first and we'll talk.


Why should they stop first when the US has the largest cumulative emissions and the largest per capita emissions in the world?  And I thought the US was supposed to lead by example?  You know, that whole American exceptionalism thing?

06Wahoo: But whatever you or any others who buy into it want to think, doesn't bug me. I'll be just fine with you taking this as a troll if you don't want to open up your mind to information that falls outside of your world view.


I love this line because 100% of the time it gets used by someone who believes something completely stupid with absolute certainty and will never listen to contrary information.  It's a perfect blend of ignorance and hypocrisy.

But I'll play the game.  Give me your best arguments that shows anthropogenic global warming/climate change isn't happening.  Show me this information that's "outside my world view".
 
2014-03-23 08:11:46 PM  

Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.


Not specifically America, all industrialized Western nations. There's a reason why India, Japan and China are some of the biggest proponents of global wharrgarrbl treaties. They stand to benefit by getting Western powerhouses to stop producing material goods and purchase all those goods from manufacturing centers in the East that have given themselves exemption from zomgcarbonintheair restrictions. Iceland loves it too, since they have abundant geothermal energy to fall back on, and they were never a huge manufacturing hub anyways.
 
2014-03-23 08:16:51 PM  

HotWingAgenda: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

Not specifically America, all industrialized Western nations. There's a reason why India, Japan and China are some of the biggest proponents of global wharrgarrbl treaties. They stand to benefit by getting Western powerhouses to stop producing material goods and purchase all those goods from manufacturing centers in the East that have given themselves exemption from zomgcarbonintheair restrictions. Iceland loves it too, since they have abundant geothermal energy to fall back on, and they were never a huge manufacturing hub anyways.


So their big evil conspiracy is globalization. Ok.
 
2014-03-23 09:05:37 PM  
So, if there's no "global warming", then that magically makes it intelligent for a species that builds thinking machines, and sends it's members to the Moon, to continue making it's energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen?
 
2014-03-23 09:56:31 PM  

HotWingAgenda: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

Not specifically America, all industrialized Western nations. There's a reason why India, Japan and China are some of the biggest proponents of global wharrgarrbl treaties. They stand to benefit by getting Western powerhouses to stop producing material goods and purchase all those goods from manufacturing centers in the East that have given themselves exemption from zomgcarbonintheair restrictions. Iceland loves it too, since they have abundant geothermal energy to fall back on, and they were never a huge manufacturing hub anyways.


Why in the blue fark would that happen?
 
2014-03-23 10:33:04 PM  

Spare Me: Solid Muldoon: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

So, you won't stop beating your wife until your neighbors stop beating theirs? What a fine fellow you are.

As long as these other countries get a free pass, America downgrades. Stop them first and we'll talk.



That's exactly what they're saying about us, you know. Except with their case they have the impetus of ongoing development and the fact that the developed world is responsible for the majority of already-extant anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
 
2014-03-23 11:00:12 PM  
I thought the debate was already settled.
 
2014-03-23 11:09:09 PM  

SevenizGud: I thought the debate was already settled.


The basics are, in terms of the physical science. TFA is about WGII (as opposed to WGI) of the IPCC AR5, which deals with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
 
2014-03-23 11:42:31 PM  

Spare Me: Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.

"Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!"

Three Days of the Condor
 
2014-03-24 12:20:32 AM  
The myth is that models of the future are anything other than pure speculation.
 
2014-03-24 01:09:31 AM  

DrPainMD: The myth is that models of the future are anything other than pure speculation.


Alternatively, if your "myth" can just as equally dismiss the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow as "pure speculation", it might not be as much as a myth as you may think.
 
2014-03-24 01:47:59 AM  

brantgoose: On the bright side, only a few percent of those people elected Obama. Or Bush. Or Clinton. Or Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon (nobody elected Ford).

Number of people who voted in the 2000 Presidential Election: 108 million. Votes for Bush: about 48 million, IIRC. More people voted for Al Gore, and three million voted for Ralph Nader, who is not the Bush-friendliest candidate in history. Less than 45% of one third of the US population can choose a President. Of course the game is rigged to favour conservatives, Republicans, rural ninnies, and the 1%, but hey, there is still progress despite all those hobbles placed on the system. It's like Homer Simpson dragging the Stone Cutter Stone of Triumph:  amazingly, it moves!

Ignorance, denial and stupidity are major enemies of mankind. And yet, the world turns.

One of the cards we have up our sleeves is the fact that conservatives will buy into anything once it starts making money or saving money. Some of the greenest homes in America are owned by denialists who just want hot water or AC on the cheap.

They may deny climate change but they adopt technologies because they save money and keep the lights on and the water flowing on a regal scale.

Conservatives are a constant harassing force in the rear guard of civilization, progress, science, literacy, education, intelligence and facts, but they follow along despite themselves. You can't be a rear guard if you can't keep up. They will adopt some of the new ideas and claim they were always theirs. They will quietly adopt the new technology without admitting they were ever against it. And so it goes, and so it goes.


100% truth.
 
2014-03-24 02:11:49 AM  

SevenizGud: I thought the debate was already settled.


Did you really think at all? Even a little?
 
2014-03-24 04:26:39 AM  

Spare Me: Solid Muldoon: Spare Me: Damnhippyfreak: Note that nobody is talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Be careful you're not arguing against a straw-man here.

Well..people rail against "Climate Change". The logical answer is somehow fixing the climate at a certain point. I'm sorry, but I believe it's largely a scam to fleece America and put some greater controls on us, our liberty. When you can sell that to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians or the Mexicans (among the UN-industrialized world overall) first, I call foul. I'm not willing to downgrade America.

So, you won't stop beating your wife until your neighbors stop beating theirs? What a fine fellow you are.

As long as these other countries get a free pass, America downgrades. Stop them first and we'll talk.


So let's say Alpha Natural Resources, Duke Energy and Patriot Energy Group all contribute to pollution while producing much needed fuel like oil, coal and gas (I know, totally far-fetched hypothetical, but bear with me). They dump waste in rivers, spew smoke into the air, and spill oil into the sea. Their workers all live near their plants and refineries, which means they have the most exposure to waste materials in the environment. Now direct links to illnesses are tenuous, but there does tend to be a higher incidence of those the nearer to the plants one lives. You're saying that if Duke and PEG don't decide to mitigate their pollution, ANR "downgrades" if it decides to do so on its own, so ANR shouldn't initiate any program to reduce pollutants and perhaps positively impact the environment in which its workers and their families live. Because...

img.fark.net
reasons?

Do you actually stop to think about your thoughts before they become words? Or is this kind of mental incontinence just normal for you...?
 
2014-03-24 07:35:03 AM  

jso2897: So, if there's no "global warming", then that magically makes it intelligent for a species that builds thinking machines, and sends it's members to the Moon, to continue making it's energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen?


Cavemen didn't know how to burn fuel to make things do work for them. They just used slaves.
Money is what makes us do things, and at present the found fuel is cheaper than the fuel you have to create.    The only reason we can afford to do things like going to the moon or having a thinking AI in our pockets is because energy is cheap.

Since we've now ruled out harvesting cheap energy from nuclear sources, we're forced to go with more dangerous and expensive things like solar and wind. The prices go up and less gets done.    To make matters worse, its been turned into a political issue instead of an infrastructure question. Both sides use the same shady math to justify their position that they've used on things like job numbers.
They aren't making a better world. They are trying to game the situation for personal benefit.

Using global warming as a basis for change is like asking a weatherman to predict a century in the future and then expecting people to take the results with a straight face.  I don't mean to deny there might be a crisis, but its not a visible or immediate one that people care about.
If you want change then you need to eliminate politicians from the discussion and explain the economic virtues of collecting free energy on site as opposed to shipping it halfway around the world.

Energy needs to be cheap. Make it cheap and people will change without further discussion.    If you don't offer alternatives in an affordable package then people will burn fuel like any thinking creature would.
Its in their own self interest to ignore you.
 
2014-03-24 08:33:58 AM  

way south: Energy needs to be cheap. Make it cheap and people will change without further discussion. If you don't offer alternatives in an affordable package then people will burn fuel like any thinking creature would.
Its in their own self interest to ignore you.


Well, then - we're screwed. Energy is not, nor has it ever been, "cheap" - it just has apparent, upfront costs, and hidden, long-term costs. And the fewer it has of the former, the more it has of the latter.
Together, those two sets of costs have never added up to "cheap".
But believe what you want - reality won't go away.
And it's true, even if you take "global warming" ( a red herring, if there ever was one) out of the equation.
 
2014-03-24 08:36:34 AM  

way south: cheap energy from nuclear sources


While I am pro-nuke in general ... calling it cheap is laughable. When you add up all the costs, including up front costs, running costs, all the down-time for safety issues, etc. the actual cost per kW actually produced never ends up being that good.
 
2014-03-24 08:42:46 AM  

Farking Canuck: way south: cheap energy from nuclear sources

While I am pro-nuke in general ... calling it cheap is laughable. When you add up all the costs, including up front costs, running costs, all the down-time for safety issues, etc. the actual cost per kW actually produced never ends up being that good.


Still, it is ( with recent technologies) virtually renewable. And anything is better than basing a worldwide energy economy on resources that are going to run out.
I don't know what the consequences of failing to develop renewable energy sources ASAP will be - but I'm grateful that I won't be around long enough to see them.
 
2014-03-24 08:57:24 AM  

jso2897: Farking Canuck: way south: cheap energy from nuclear sources

While I am pro-nuke in general ... calling it cheap is laughable. When you add up all the costs, including up front costs, running costs, all the down-time for safety issues, etc. the actual cost per kW actually produced never ends up being that good.

Still, it is ( with recent technologies) virtually renewable. And anything is better than basing a worldwide energy economy on resources that are going to run out.
I don't know what the consequences of failing to develop renewable energy sources ASAP will be - but I'm grateful that I won't be around long enough to see them.


Like I said, I am, in general, pro-nuke. Just being realistic about the costs / benefits.

I'd like to see some real progress in some of the newer technologies like pebble bed reactors and some of the other gen.4 designs..
 
2014-03-24 10:03:05 AM  

06Wahoo: Heh, of course he isn't going to believe it. We hear about the "consensus" and the "settled science", yet they couldn't predict the "pause" that we keep hearing about. And those polar ice caps that were supposed to disappear years ago have done anything but. Oh, and who can forget that "weather isn't climate", except when it supports climate change (if that is even the case, since there seems to be little agreement on whether we will have more extreme weather events or less).Face it, the climate is far more complex than we believe it to be, and most of the "science" around it (as though science is simply the truth, not the search for the truth) is really just an attempt at branding that the data doesn't back up.But whatever you or any others who buy into it want to think, doesn't bug me. I'll be just fine with you taking this as a troll if you don't want to open up your mind to information that falls outside of your world view.


I think I'll green you as "this guy gets it"
 
2014-03-24 05:14:11 PM  

sure haven't: 06Wahoo:

I think I'll green you as "this guy gets it"


Rational and logical thought last seen fleeing at near light speed from these two posters.
 
2014-03-24 05:31:30 PM  

Slaxl: no, billions of people starving to death because of global warming isn't what everyone standing up and saying "let's do something about global warming before it's too late", wants.


BumpInTheNight: Deniers really are missing the point, I'll be glad when some small pox gets loose and kills those unvaccinated dicks off finally once and for all.


You`re right. They don`t want them dead from global warming, they want them dead from smallpox!

It makes complete sense!
 
2014-03-24 06:11:45 PM  

06Wahoo: a particular individual: sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.

Do you enjoy being a dupe of cynical shills like Frank Luntz? That notion that "climate change" is a diversionary tactic by those stupid liberals is... Well, here:

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communi ...


I notice that not once did you address the central--the only--point of my post, namely that "global warming" has not been cynically replaced by "climate change" by anyone but right-wing anti-science deniers like you.  Way to deflect, skippy.
 
2014-03-24 07:09:18 PM  

dready zim: You`re right. They don`t want them dead from global warming, they want them dead from smallpox!


I think he was only referring to stupid people dying of smallpox. I'd also suggest that he was not actually seriously wishing for anyone's death.

This is not the same as the strawman that deniers put up about the science supporting crowd wanting people to die to reduce human CO2 emissions.
 
2014-03-24 09:43:10 PM  

Farking Canuck: dready zim: You`re right. They don`t want them dead from global warming, they want them dead from smallpox!

I think he was only referring to stupid people dying of smallpox. I'd also suggest that he was not actually seriously wishing for anyone's death.

This is not the same as the strawman that deniers put up about the science supporting crowd wanting people to die to reduce human CO2 emissions.


Aye, I settle upon climate & vaccination deniers gnaw upon our ability to advance as a species.  Both situations warrant attention but neither will instantly slaughter the human race on their own.
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report