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.

(Slate)   Neil deGrasse Tyson assures us that the earth will survive global climate change. People won't, but the earth will be just fine. (Video)   (slate.com) divider line 136
    More: Obvious, degrasse tyson  
•       •       •

1510 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 May 2014 at 1:27 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-05 12:32:02 PM
Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.
 
2014-05-05 12:36:23 PM
There are too many of to get rid of completely. Things will probably get less comfortable, however. Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.
 
2014-05-05 12:42:07 PM

Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


Hell, we've figured out ways to live (at least temporarily), in the cold hard vacuum of space.

We'll manage.
 
2014-05-05 12:45:14 PM
Carlin said it first.
 
2014-05-05 01:24:11 PM
i1214.photobucket.com

"You don't f*cking say."
 
2014-05-05 01:39:20 PM
Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.
 
2014-05-05 01:39:51 PM

Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


And what wonderful standards of living that would make for. You can't go ten feet in the arctic without tripping over some Inuit's climate controlled yurt, and oh, what I wouldn't give to be a woman in the Sahara!
 
2014-05-05 01:42:01 PM

EvilEgg: There are too many of to get rid of completely. Things will probably get less comfortable, however. Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.


An interesting thing I saw once, not sure when, don't remember where; but it is believed that, at one point, the human race was down to about 1000 breeding pairs. (Or, I guess, 1 if you're thinking Adam and Eve.)

Amazing really. We almost didn't make the cut.

Ding, ding. Round two. Nature tries to "fix the glitch."
 
2014-05-05 01:45:07 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


Only a self-aware idiot would ask that question.

The rest of us just continue with our existence.  Because we *CAN*.
 
2014-05-05 01:45:52 PM

EvilEgg: Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.

The thing is, our decline will be so painful and tragic that the living will envy the dead.  And it will be 100% preventable if we merely applied the knowledge we have today.  Not only are people refusing to learn, they're openly fighting it.
 
2014-05-05 01:45:53 PM

Confabulat: Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


Neither is a six septillion kilogram nickel-iron ball bearing.
 
2014-05-05 01:48:56 PM

abb3w: Confabulat: Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.

Neither is a six septillion kilogram nickel-iron ball bearing.


Earth would make a shiatty ball bearing. Maybe just a ball.
 
2014-05-05 01:51:16 PM
"The planet is fine, the people are farked" - George Carlin
 
2014-05-05 01:53:49 PM

zamboni: EvilEgg: There are too many of to get rid of completely. Things will probably get less comfortable, however. Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.

An interesting thing I saw once, not sure when, don't remember where; but it is believed that, at one point, the human race was down to about 1000 breeding pairs. (Or, I guess, 1 if you're thinking Adam and Eve.)

Amazing really. We almost didn't make the cut.

Ding, ding. Round two. Nature tries to "fix the glitch."


Don't know where/Don't know when/But we will meet again/Some sunny day
 
2014-05-05 01:56:42 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


If we weren't, we wouldn't have. That is the core of evolution, yes?
 
2014-05-05 01:56:59 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-05 01:57:53 PM
I think he is wrong.  Yes the earth survived a collision with a planetoid the size of mars and yes over the years we have gone through at least one complete snowball phase let alone heavy glaciation and periods of heavy warming, but this time it is different because of the fungability of carbon atoms.... readuponit.
 
2014-05-05 02:01:09 PM

dragonchild: EvilEgg: Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.
The thing is, our decline will be so painful and tragic that the living will envy the dead.  And it will be 100% preventable if we merely applied the knowledge we have today.  Not only are people refusing to learn, they're openly fighting it.


We are in an era of hyperpartisanship. Until we figure that out we cant do shiat about climate change. There is no way in hell any sort of deal can be made.
 
2014-05-05 02:02:01 PM

zamboni: An interesting thing I saw once, not sure when, don't remember where; but it is believed that, at one point, the human race was down to about 1000 breeding pairs.


Try (doi:10.1038/nature10231); the Toba eruption usually gets the blame.
 
2014-05-05 02:05:04 PM
We will muddle through, just like the people of Rapanui did after their ecological collapse.
There were ~2000 of them still on the 164 sq km island when westerners showed up, or 12.2 per sq km.

That was about the population density of the United States during WW1.
 
2014-05-05 02:08:41 PM
maybe the Earth will be better off after we're gone
 
2014-05-05 02:10:32 PM
Of course the Earth will survive us.  Did anyone think otherwise?

We couldn't destroy the Earth even if we tried  Not if we polluted far more than we do not.  Not if we detonated all of our nukes at once.  No matter what we do.

We could easily cause our own extinction, and take a lot of other species down with us.  But we can't destroy the Earth itself.  Nor could we destroy all life on Earth.  We could do our worst, and then when we're gone, whatever life remains will adapt to the new environment and eventually fill all available ecological niches.
 
2014-05-05 02:14:10 PM

Saiga410: I think he is wrong.  Yes the earth survived a collision with a planetoid the size of mars and yes over the years we have gone through at least one complete snowball phase let alone heavy glaciation and periods of heavy warming, but this time it is different because of the fungability of carbon atoms.... readuponit.


That collision was before life started and would be whats known as a sterilization event.  Life would most likely survive as long as the crust stays relatively intact, but a collision of that size would have enough energy to melt everything to mantel.

As for CO2, there were periods much worse than what we're doing.  Our ancestors were also basically proto mice and miraculously lived through it in some ecological niche.

If we keep this up, humanity will be around.  But I hope you like the Dark Ages: Part II.  Assuming we don't nuke each other over water resources and farmable land first.
 
2014-05-05 02:14:16 PM

ModernPrimitive01: maybe the Earth will be better off after we're gone


Earth with neither be worse nor better off, it will be the same as it always has been. It will just be.
 
2014-05-05 02:14:20 PM

Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


What are a couple hundred million dead? What would be unbearable would be to use a different kind of energy.
 
2014-05-05 02:15:11 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


It depends on what you mean by "worthy".

Those who survive do so because they are physically and mentally able to do so. They are, in that respect, worthy of survival by definition. If you're venturing into the realm of "moral worthiness," then that's a much more subjective area which can be debated endlessly without ever reaching a resolution.
 
2014-05-05 02:17:03 PM

dittybopper: Hell, we've figured out ways to live (at least temporarily), in the cold hard vacuum of space.

We'll manage.


A few million of us, maybe. It won't be us little people who survive the dieback.
 
2014-05-05 02:17:12 PM

zamboni: EvilEgg: There are too many of to get rid of completely. Things will probably get less comfortable, however. Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.

An interesting thing I saw once, not sure when, don't remember where; but it is believed that, at one point, the human race was down to about 1000 breeding pairs. (Or, I guess, 1 if you're thinking Adam and Eve.)

Amazing really. We almost didn't make the cut.

Ding, ding. Round two. Nature tries to "fix the glitch."


Nature had its chance and blew it. At our currently level of technology, nature isn't going to get rid of us without destroying pretty much all multi-cellular life along with us. Basically it would take a luna sized asteroid to even have a shot at it. Yeah, it could get pretty nasty, nature/humanity could "destroy civilization as we know it", but we will go on, rebuild, maybe repeat, but it would be almost impossible to really get rid of us. All the methane trapped undersea could release tomorrow, the death toll would be enormous, governments might collapse, but we would go on.
 
2014-05-05 02:19:42 PM

Doc Daneeka: Of course the Earth will survive us.  Did anyone think otherwise?

We couldn't destroy the Earth even if we tried  Not if we polluted far more than we do not.  Not if we detonated all of our nukes at once.  No matter what we do.

We could easily cause our own extinction, and take a lot of other species down with us.  But we can't destroy the Earth itself.  Nor could we destroy all life on Earth.  We could do our worst, and then when we're gone, whatever life remains will adapt to the new environment and eventually fill all available ecological niches.


I've been saying this for years: the earth was floating serenely through space for millions of years before we sprang up, and it will continue to float serenely through space for millions of years after we and all of our descendants are dead and gone. People who exhort others to "Save the Planet" have always irritated me because the planet doesn't need saving. It never has, and it never will. Humans (and other living things) may very well need saving. But the planet will be here regardless.
 
2014-05-05 02:20:15 PM

ModernPrimitive01: maybe the Earth will be better off after we're gone


The Earth is a big chunk of rock.  There is no better or worse for rock.  It just is.

Maybe you mean that things will be better off for other species after we we're gone.  For many probably.  Others will be a worse off (all our domesticated species as well as the pests and scavengers that depend on human civilization).  In any case, they'll all be extinct in the end.
 
2014-05-05 02:24:41 PM

Cybernetic: People who exhort others to "Save the Planet" have always irritated me because the planet doesn't need saving. It never has, and it never will.

That's not entirely true.
 
2014-05-05 02:25:49 PM

Uncle Tractor: dittybopper: Hell, we've figured out ways to live (at least temporarily), in the cold hard vacuum of space.

We'll manage.

A few million of us, maybe. It won't be us little people who survive the dieback.


Actually, it'll be the people who can conform best to the new environment.  That doesn't necessarily mean those in charge.
 
2014-05-05 02:27:23 PM

Doc Daneeka: We could do our worst, and then when we're gone, whatever life remains will adapt to the new environment and eventually fill all available ecological niches.


And that new life will evolve, become intelligent, develop language, and eventually form religion. They will gaze skyward and say, "There has to be a god! How else can you explain where this perfect planet came from? It has the exact amount of arsenic in the water that we need, and the atmosphere holds in the heat to keep us at a constant 150F. It was DESIGNED, I tell you!"
 
2014-05-05 02:28:55 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


What a trite, foolish thing to say.
 
2014-05-05 02:29:41 PM

zamboni: EvilEgg: There are too many of to get rid of completely. Things will probably get less comfortable, however. Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.

An interesting thing I saw once, not sure when, don't remember where; but it is believed that, at one point, the human race was down to about 1000 breeding pairs. (Or, I guess, 1 if you're thinking Adam and Eve.)

Amazing really. We almost didn't make the cut.

Ding, ding. Round two. Nature tries to "fix the glitch."


Actually, no.

Just because all of humanity is descended from about 1,000 breeding pairs doesn't mean that there were just that many humans on the Earth at that time (or close to it).  It just means that the descendants of those pairs were more successful than the descendants of the others, and they replaced them.

Just because there is a genetic bottleneck that is detectable today doesn't mean that the actual population of humans living at that time was that low.
 
2014-05-05 02:30:05 PM

Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


Sure. Some humans will survive, but not 7 billion. Probably not even 1 billion. And "civilization" probably won't do too well either.
 
2014-05-05 02:31:08 PM

Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.


WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.
 
2014-05-05 02:31:13 PM

cman: dragonchild: EvilEgg: Even if 99% of us go that's still 71 million left.
The thing is, our decline will be so painful and tragic that the living will envy the dead.  And it will be 100% preventable if we merely applied the knowledge we have today.  Not only are people refusing to learn, they're openly fighting it.

We are in an era of hyperpartisanship. Until we figure that out we cant do shiat about climate change. There is no way in hell any sort of deal can be made.


By mid century we'll have accumulated more than 1C of warming since AGW began. By 2100 warming will speed up and we'll have a total of 2C of warming. At that point, the carbons that are frozen in the tundra and taiga of the Northern Hemisphere will outgas at the same rate we're producing them via industrial processes now.  So, we could shut down all industrial production of carbon gases and we would still warm. Surely sometime in the next 85 years people will realize that protecting carbon plutocrat fortunes really isn't in their best interests. It won't come because of rising oceans. That's 500 years down the line. It will come from successive years of a heat wave that does in the American/Canadian grain belt. At 114F corn dies. It did that a couple of years ago in western Kansas. One afternoon, temps went to 114. The next morning the fields involved were grey. They weren't withered. They weren't stunted. They were dead. The hotter temps become, the more likely a widespread event like that becomes. That isn't spin. That isn't faith. Russia and Australia have already lost seasons to heat. IIRC, they're agricultural producers #3 and #5. (I think Brazil is #4)  When the heat/drought whammy hits the US and Canada, then the US will suddenly find the will  to do the right thing. (That's my prediction at least.)
 
2014-05-05 02:38:46 PM

zamboni: "fix the glitch."



readersrecommend.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-05 02:46:45 PM
No Drama Tyson's lack of faith in Man's indomitable will to survive what life throws at us, evolve to conditions, adapt to changing situations, exploit available resources and conquer whatever challenges face us is...disappoint.
 
2014-05-05 02:49:33 PM
are you stupid?  we'll be shooting and eating each other within 50 years if the present course continues.

eat the rich is a fine slogan, but let's face it there are lots more poor.
 
2014-05-05 02:57:32 PM

davynelson: are you stupid?  we'll be shooting and eating each other within 50 years if the present course continues.

eat the rich is a fine slogan, but let's face it there are lots more poor.


That's true.

And for most of human history, you had to eat a couple of poors to get the same caloric intake as eating a single rich, but recently, that's flipped:  Now the rich are thin and the poors are fat.
 
2014-05-05 02:59:59 PM
40+ posts in and nobody's posted this yet? Farkers be slippin'... ;^)

g-ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-05-05 03:00:27 PM
People say you can't really destroy the earth, but I've given some thought to breaking planets. Relativistic impactors, helium flash bombs, artificial black holes. I doubt we could make enough antimatter to do the job, you'd need to park the fabricator in the coronasphere.
 
2014-05-05 03:04:36 PM

yakmans_dad: It will come from successive years of a heat wave that does in the American/Canadian grain belt. At 114F corn dies. It did that a couple of years ago in western Kansas. One afternoon, temps went to 114. The next morning the fields involved were grey. They weren't withered. They weren't stunted. They were dead.


Yup.  It doesn't take much of a shift in the mean to turn a "thousand year heat wave" outlier day into an event that occurs every couple of summers.

Agriculture/water is where we'll notice the hit first.  Modern farming is incredibly adapted to a narrow climate range, and we reap great dividends from it in terms of tons/acre.  But if the temperature and/or precipitation patterns jiggle around and stay jiggled, it's not like you just move the cornfield 100 miles north.  The soil's different, the terrain is different, the water table is different, etc.

Can we adapt to that?  Sure.  But it's going to be very expensive and the interim won't be fun, especially if you're poor.  All the major economic studies on climate change points towards one warning: Mitigation of emissions is much cheaper than dealing with the consequences of inaction.
 
2014-05-05 03:07:14 PM

dittybopper: And for most of human history, you had to eat a couple of poors to get the same caloric intake as eating a single rich, but recently, that's flipped: Now the rich are thin and the poors are fat.


In wealthy nations, at least.  It's apparently one of the most confusing things for people that emigrate to the US from a poor area.  Of course, "Americans don't walk or bike anywhere" is one of the others, and helps explain the first.
 
2014-05-05 03:08:11 PM
Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.
 
2014-05-05 03:10:13 PM

ModernPrimitive01: maybe the Earth will be better off after we're gone


It will definitely be better off after we're gone.

Cybernetic: People who exhort others to "Save the Planet" have always irritated me because the planet doesn't need saving. It never has, and it never will. Humans (and other living things) may very well need saving. But the planet will be here regardless.


Because you're not smart enough to understand when they say, "save the planet" that's shorthand for saying, "save the ecosystem that supports human life?"

The planet will not be here regardless. Our sun is going to destroy it.
 
2014-05-05 03:18:05 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-05 03:18:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: Because you're not smart enough to understand when they say, "save the planet" that's shorthand for saying, "save the ecosystem that supports human life?"


F*cking scientists and their pathological insistence on precise language to describe shiat.  Bunch of f*cking overachievers.
 
2014-05-05 03:23:22 PM

Lucky LaRue: Lando Lincoln: Because you're not smart enough to understand when they say, "save the planet" that's shorthand for saying, "save the ecosystem that supports human life?"

F*cking scientists and their pathological insistence on precise language to describe shiat.  Bunch of f*cking overachievers.


I think the word you're looking for is "pedantic."
 
2014-05-05 03:25:49 PM

mr lawson: Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.

WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.


No no no.

You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.
 
2014-05-05 03:27:33 PM

ikanreed: none are extinction events.
We

are an extinction event.  That's kind of why people who study this for a living are having a bit of a fume.
 
2014-05-05 03:33:28 PM

lake_huron: You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.


They do. Some much more than others. Some change their environments so much that their own species dies because of it. Some are smart enough to stop their destructive behavior. Some are not.
 
2014-05-05 03:39:33 PM

lake_huron: mr lawson: Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.

WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.

No no no.

You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.


And when beavers alter their environment too much, large numbers of them die of starvation. See the distinction?
 
2014-05-05 03:41:03 PM
Our species could be easily extincted by a number of very plausible events. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
That is all.
 
2014-05-05 03:43:01 PM

HighZoolander: Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.

And what wonderful standards of living that would make for. You can't go ten feet in the arctic without tripping over some Inuit's climate controlled yurt, and oh, what I wouldn't give to be a woman in the Sahara!


because that'll be all that's left, vast desert or ice. And where they meet, boy howdy.
 
2014-05-05 03:44:41 PM

ikanreed: //Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.


Depends on how humanity responds to environmental stress.

www.rockpapershotgun.com
 
2014-05-05 03:49:36 PM

WinoRhino: Doc Daneeka: We could do our worst, and then when we're gone, whatever life remains will adapt to the new environment and eventually fill all available ecological niches.

And that new life will evolve, become intelligent, develop language, and eventually form religion. They will gaze skyward and say, "There has to be a god! How else can you explain where this perfect planet came from? It has the exact amount of arsenic in the water that we need, and the atmosphere holds in the heat to keep us at a constant 150F. It was DESIGNED, I tell you!"


Yeah but I bet bananas won't fit perfectly into whatever hands they might have.
 
2014-05-05 03:53:30 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.


Humanity as a species might survive, but I'd prefer that we survive at or above our current level of technological civilization. I don't particularly want to be sent back to the stone age.
 
2014-05-05 04:11:46 PM

Lord Dimwit: ikanreed: Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.

Humanity as a species might survive, but I'd prefer that we survive at or above our current level of technological civilization. I don't particularly want to be sent back to the stone age.


I think I made it clear that I was aware of that.  And also, knowledge doesn't just vanish anymore.  The printing press, hard drives, even computer networks are going to stay.  The problems that will be faced are going to be about food, water, and disease(and the wars they create), more than anything else.
 
2014-05-05 04:32:42 PM

dittybopper: Actually, it'll be the people who can conform best to the new environment.  That doesn't necessarily mean those in charge.


Those with money / in charge will live reasonably comfortably in huge cavern systems with hydroponic gardens and giant fish tanks, if it comes to that (or move to antarctica). The rest of us ...won't.

Depends how bad it gets, of course.
 
2014-05-05 04:33:13 PM
You get everything you deserve, and you deserve everything you get.
 
2014-05-05 04:43:12 PM
Everybody thinks that the end of this means the end of all this.
This is clearly not the case and has never been the case, as illustrated by the entire history of humans.
Collapse is a continuum of never-ending change, not an event that happens on Thursday afternoon on a certain date in the future.

You are living inside the corpse that you fear.
 
2014-05-05 05:00:27 PM
Came here looking for an easy link to Carlin, left disappointed.

But I'm still generous :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
 
2014-05-05 05:07:14 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.


You are a treasure. Knowledge like that just pulled out of the aether! Do you do weddings? birthdays? brises?

(Do you have a lot of props for your act or can you do it in a living room-sized space?)
 
2014-05-05 05:12:29 PM

Lord Dimwit: I don't particularly want to be sent back to the stone age.


Worst case scenario would be probably be early steam age.
Amost everyone understands plows, and enough people understand how to smelt iron, which will always be in plentiful supply.

However, now that the easily accessible fossil fuels are gone, getting past early steam will be a might trickier.
 
2014-05-05 05:16:01 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


It is our very survival that makes us worthy. When we are not worthy we will know.

For a short while at least.
 
Ant
2014-05-05 05:16:16 PM

Best Princess Celestia: Been saying that for years.

We have survived; but we have never asked are we worthy of survival.


If you survive, you're worthy of survival. By what standard are you measuring worthiness?
 
2014-05-05 05:19:19 PM

Ant: If you survive, you're worthy of survival.

No, it just means no one's gotten around to judging you.  And most won't, because with the exception of bored busybodies we all got shiat to do.
 
2014-05-05 05:24:58 PM

TyrantII: As for CO2, there were periods much worse than what we're doing. Our ancestors were also basically proto mice and miraculously lived through it in some ecological niche.


Doesn't that leave the question of what happens when all the methane clathrates under the sea and in what's permafrost at the moment revert to the gaseous state in a short timespan?
 
2014-05-05 05:27:42 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Doesn't that leave the question of what happens when all the methane clathrates under the sea and in what's permafrost at the moment revert to the gaseous state in a short timespan?


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-05 05:37:13 PM
...and nothing of value was lost.
 
2014-05-05 05:39:56 PM

NEPAman: No Drama Tyson's lack of faith in Man's indomitable will to survive what life throws at us, evolve to conditions, adapt to changing situations, exploit available resources and conquer whatever challenges face us is...disappoint.


When a sufficient percentage of the population either ridicules the idea that the conditions will change or simply doesn't care, there is little basis for such faith.
 
2014-05-05 05:51:44 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.


At 5C most of the central US will have summer heat that rivals Death Valley and the Sahara.  Forget about growing food in California.

3-5C is a catastrophe for humanity, as water and food resources are going to become very scarce. There will also be mass migrations to the upper latitudes of the norther hemisphere (there's not much land in the higher latitudes south.  Funny enough, winters in those areas will also be harsher as the jet stream oscillation picks up and brings down arctic air much further.

Survival of 9-12 billion people will not be possible.
 
2014-05-05 05:57:20 PM

lake_huron: mr lawson: Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.

WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.

No no no.

You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.


Carlin did that one, too.

"The word "natural" is completely meaningless! Everything is natural! Nature includes everything! It's not just trees and flowers! It's everything! A chemical company's toxic waste is completely natural! It's part of the nature! We're all part of nature! Everything is natural! Dog shiat is natural! It's just not real good food!"
 
2014-05-05 05:59:12 PM

Stone Meadow: 40+ posts in and nobody's posted this yet? Farkers be slippin'... ;^)

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 238x400]


Earth Abides is tough to get started but worth it to stick with it.
 
2014-05-05 06:03:21 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Worst case scenario would be probably be early steam age.


Amazing. How do you know this?

/My worst case scenarios are much worse.
 
2014-05-05 06:06:49 PM
There's no place like home
to return to

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-05-05 06:06:50 PM

ikanreed: Lord Dimwit: ikanreed: Yeah, it turns out big balls of mostly molten rock are kinda hard to destroy.

//Humanity is not doomed, Doctor Tyson. 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.

Humanity as a species might survive, but I'd prefer that we survive at or above our current level of technological civilization. I don't particularly want to be sent back to the stone age.

I think I made it clear that I was aware of that.  And also, knowledge doesn't just vanish anymore.  The printing press, hard drives, even computer networks are going to stay.  The problems that will be faced are going to be about food, water, and disease(and the wars they create), more than anything else.


Ad nauseam: how do you know this?

Hasn't it usually been much worse than the bland predictions? WWI was going to be over by Christmas. (In case you want an example and have forgotten.) Weren't we going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq? (In case you want another example and have forgotten.)
 
2014-05-05 06:09:29 PM

Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.


If you're comfortable with the notion of reducing the population to the levels that can be supported by arctic and saharan conditions, be my guest. I'm guessing that most of those who'll need to "voluntarily" reduce their numbers to the adjusted capacity of the planet might not be willing to go gently into that long night.
 
2014-05-05 06:18:15 PM
The absolutely stunning thing that hasn't been mentioned is how much cheaper it would be to avoid collapse by actively switching to other energy sources. Talk about the psychosis of fatalism.
 
2014-05-05 06:20:54 PM

IlGreven: lake_huron: mr lawson: Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.

WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.

No no no.

You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.

Carlin did that one, too.

"The word "natural" is completely meaningless! Everything is natural! Nature includes everything! It's not just trees and flowers! It's everything! A chemical company's toxic waste is completely natural! It's part of the nature! We're all part of nature! Everything is natural! Dog shiat is natural! It's just not real good food!"



I miss Carlin.

"If you want to know what a moronic word 'lifestyle' is, all you have to do is realize that, in a technical sense, Attila the Hun had an active, outdoor lifestyle."
 
2014-05-05 06:42:51 PM

TyrantII: Saiga410: I think he is wrong.  Yes the earth survived a collision with a planetoid the size of mars and yes over the years we have gone through at least one complete snowball phase let alone heavy glaciation and periods of heavy warming, but this time it is different because of the fungability of carbon atoms.... readuponit.

That collision was before life started and would be whats known as a sterilization event.  Life would most likely survive as long as the crust stays relatively intact, but a collision of that size would have enough energy to melt everything to mantel.

As for CO2, there were periods much worse than what we're doing.  Our ancestors were also basically proto mice and miraculously lived through it in some ecological niche.

If we keep this up, humanity will be around.  But I hope you like the Dark Ages: Part II.  Assuming we don't nuke each other over water resources and farmable land first.


http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_sam e_game_of_civilization_ii/
 
2014-05-05 06:46:17 PM
mother nature is a tough old biatch

civilizations...not so much

/ adapt or die,
 
2014-05-05 07:07:06 PM
Tyson didn't even mention nuclear power as an option.
 
2014-05-05 07:18:41 PM

dittybopper: Confabulat: Meh. We figured out ways to live in the Arctic and the Sahara. Humanity isn't that easy to get rid of.

Hell, we've figured out ways to live (at least temporarily), in the cold hard vacuum of space.

We'll manage.


Exactly. We may not have 7 billion of use swarming around, but at this point nothing short of an asteroid the size of Cuba is going to get us off this planet.
 
2014-05-05 07:22:58 PM

That Guy Jeff: nothing short of an asteroid the size of Cuba is going to get us off this planet.

That's not entirely true either.
 
2014-05-05 07:27:06 PM

yakmans_dad: When the heat/drought whammy hits the US and Canada, then the US will suddenly find the will  to do the right thing. (That's my prediction at least.)


If the bulk ( pun intended ) of the population can't be kept fat, dumb*, and happy with cheap energy, and more importantly, cheap food, then yeah, we'll be forced to do the "right thing"....


*with mass media
 
2014-05-05 07:50:31 PM
It's the old, "Meh, I'll be dead before all Hell really breaks loose so why bother?" mindset that's really allowing us to continue on our marry way to significant population control.

Too bad our great grandkids will get to witness the shiat really hitting the fan. Screw them though and their fancy-pants electro-dohickie skateboards and scooters.

/Get off my lawn
 
2014-05-05 07:52:31 PM
*sigh*

media-curse.cursecdn.com
 
2014-05-05 07:54:16 PM

AlgaeRancher: mother nature is a tough old biatch

civilizations...not so much

/ adapt or die,


On that note, I think our civilization has peaked.  Socially speaking, there's not much more we can do.

Sure, there's some, gay rights and whatnot, and then getting the rest of the planet to catch up.

But coupled along with that is corrupt government, NSA and TSA, crooked law enforcement, silly obstructionist laws and taxes, increasing distances between economic classes etc.
 Sure, there's a lot of things we can do with technology, but it's getting to the point where the common man can access some of it because of trickle down, and what he can access doesn't solve any of the problems we do have, they only serve as a distraction.


We've had a good run, but I think things can only get worse from here on out.  I could stand to see the slate wiped clean.
 
2014-05-05 09:00:33 PM

jigger: Tyson didn't even mention nuclear power as an option.


That's because it's a short term stopgap, not a viable long term solution.
 
2014-05-05 09:27:47 PM
yakmans_dad:

Read a book.
 
2014-05-05 09:46:31 PM

jso2897: jigger: Tyson didn't even mention nuclear power as an option.

That's because it's a short term stopgap, not a viable long term solution.


I disagree. If we go thorium cycle reactors, it's a middle-long term solution. Thorium is about as abundant as lead, produces far less waste in a reactor, and has very few industrial applications. Just the currently available sources would be able to provide power for a thousands years or more. As a transitional power source and providing a certain amount of baseline load capacity, it'd be a fine piece of the pie.
 
2014-05-05 09:51:22 PM

lewismarktwo: Stone Meadow: 40+ posts in and nobody's posted this yet? Farkers be slippin'... ;^)

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 238x400]

Earth Abides is tough to get started but worth it to stick with it.


Yes, it is a bit tough to get into...but then it just gets better and better. IMO one the best post apocalyptic stories ever written, along with Alas Babylon and One Second After (honorable mention: Lucifer's Hammer) All have solid current science behind their basic premises, and all three are tightly written, topical stories from the 40's, 50's and 2000's.
 
2014-05-05 09:52:07 PM

ikanreed: 3C is expensive as hell, 5C is a continuing disaster, 7C is a catastrophe, but none are extinction events.


The End Permian was a mostly carbon-driven mass extinction of ~5-8°C, orders of magnitude less rapid than the present. Biggest mass extinction in the geologic record.

The Triassic-Jurassic was another carbon-driven mass extinction. And there have been several other extinction events driven by warming due to volcanic carbon pulses that were notable even though they aren't among the "Big Five".

There were other factors involved, to be sure. But there are other factors at work today as well (habitat destruction and fragmentation, overharvesting, conventional pollutants, etc.) and we've already increased the extinction rate above the background level.
 
2014-05-05 10:01:53 PM

dittybopper: zamboni: EvilEgg: 

Actually, no.

Just because all of humanity is descended from about 1,000 breeding pairs doesn't mean that there were just that many humans on the Earth at that time (or close to it).  It just means that the descendants of those pairs were more successful than the descendants of the others, and they replaced them.

Just because there is a genetic bottleneck that is detectable today doesn't mean that the actual population of humans living at that time was that low.


So, it's like the Orkin guy came around one day and did service.  1,000 of us survived, and he's due back at the end of the month.
 
2014-05-05 10:06:45 PM
Hey, look! It's the daily NdGT Fark thread!
 
2014-05-05 10:08:29 PM

Jon Snow: we've already increased the extinction rate above the background level.


LOL, whut.

/Judas Priest.
//Background extinction rate of AGW trolls, you mean.
///"background extinction rate" wtf.
////Begone, troll.
 
2014-05-05 10:42:20 PM
 
2014-05-06 12:58:28 AM

IC Stars: There's no place like home
to return to

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x500]


OMG the 50-foot woman ate one of the Devo guys!
 
2014-05-06 01:06:29 AM

IlGreven: lake_huron: mr lawson: Monty845: Nature had its chance and blew it.

WE ARE NATURE.
I think it did quite well.

No no no.

You see, when a beaver builds a dam, or bees build a hive, that's NATURAL.

When humans building a building, that's UNNATURAL.

See the distinction?

/I don't, but many people do for some reason.
//News flash: living things change their environments.

Carlin did that one, too.

"The word "natural" is completely meaningless! Everything is natural! Nature includes everything! It's not just trees and flowers! It's everything! A chemical company's toxic waste is completely natural! It's part of the nature! We're all part of nature! Everything is natural! Dog shiat is natural! It's just not real good food!"


I always snicker at foods being labelled "organic". Pretty sure even my 'conventionally farmed' apples are as carbon-containing as the 'organic' kind!
 
2014-05-06 04:14:32 AM

yakmans_dad: Hasn't it usually been much worse than the bland predictions? WWI was going to be over by Christmas. (In case you want an example and have forgotten.) Weren't we going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq? (In case you want another example and have forgotten.)


You're comparing social / political predictions to technological predictions. Global warming won't make our technology disappear, but with some luck it'll wipe out the fundies, who  want our technology to disappear.

In fact, I'd say it's the people who cling to the high-tech solutions who have the best chance of surviving the climate change. Vertical farming FTW.


/why does fark insist on two space characters in front of words in italic?
 
2014-05-06 08:20:00 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: we've already increased the extinction rate above the background level.

LOL, whut.

/Judas Priest.
//Background extinction rate of AGW trolls, you mean.
///"background extinction rate" wtf.
////Begone, troll.


Maybe he meant the extinction noise floor.
 
2014-05-06 08:32:03 AM

Uncle Tractor: yakmans_dad: Hasn't it usually been much worse than the bland predictions? WWI was going to be over by Christmas. (In case you want an example and have forgotten.) Weren't we going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq? (In case you want another example and have forgotten.)

You're comparing social / political predictions to technological predictions. Global warming won't make our technology disappear, but with some luck it'll wipe out the fundies, who  want our technology to disappear.

In fact, I'd say it's the people who cling to the high-tech solutions who have the best chance of surviving the climate change. Vertical farming FTW.



You seem to think that AGW won't have any social/political effects. Why? The Arab Spring was caused by unrest brought about by increases in the cost of food. The last time I looked if you lose a year's agricultural production the cost of food goes up. There's currently a wee bit of unrest among Muslims. I'm guessing that persistent food shortages might aggravate that unrest.
 
2014-05-06 08:34:23 AM

SevenizGud: Meanwhile, on THIS globe:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
Warming is juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner.

Boo!


I've always loved the line on that chart. There's no explanation for the origin or function of that line. It's just a line drawn on a chart! (We do this all the time. Don't bother replying. Even with your cherry-picked data there's still warming.)
 
2014-05-06 09:16:39 AM
Neil deGrasse Tyson trolled earth on Twitter and it's pretty hilarious?
 
2014-05-06 12:24:15 PM
OMG! The Climate has never changed before! The Earth's climate was always static before now! Everybody panic!

angryblackladychronicles.com
 
2014-05-06 01:53:32 PM

JeffDenver: OMG! The Climate has never changed before! The Earth's climate was always static before now! Everybody panic!

[angryblackladychronicles.com image 160x75]


And none of those previous changes caused mass extinctions or a collapse of a civilization, right?

Oh wait, they did. Nobody thinks climate change is going to exterminate the human species, but it sure as hell might destroy technological civilization which I, for one, am fond of.
 
2014-05-06 02:03:30 PM

Lord Dimwit: JeffDenver: OMG! The Climate has never changed before! The Earth's climate was always static before now! Everybody panic!

[angryblackladychronicles.com image 160x75]

And none of those previous changes caused mass extinctions or a collapse of a civilization, right?

Oh wait, they did. Nobody thinks climate change is going to exterminate the human species, but it sure as hell might destroy technological civilization which I, for one, am fond of.


Yes, there was definitely a mass extinction during the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. We had Dinosaurs before then. You can see them in all the paintings from those periods.
 
2014-05-06 02:38:10 PM

SevenizGud: Meanwhile, on THIS globe:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
Warming is juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner.

Boo!



As always, the counter-arguments are here and here. Each time you ignore them you just prove yourself to be more and more irrational and dishonest.
 
2014-05-06 02:59:14 PM

JeffDenver: Lord Dimwit: JeffDenver: OMG! The Climate has never changed before! The Earth's climate was always static before now! Everybody panic!

[angryblackladychronicles.com image 160x75]

And none of those previous changes caused mass extinctions or a collapse of a civilization, right?

Oh wait, they did. Nobody thinks climate change is going to exterminate the human species, but it sure as hell might destroy technological civilization which I, for one, am fond of.

Yes, there was definitely a mass extinction during the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. We had Dinosaurs before then. You can see them in all the paintings from those periods.



Be aware that not all changes to the climate are identical in scope, severity and impact. The relatively small changes during the little ice age and medieval warm period are smaller than the current warming trend and both are much smaller than the changes seen during past mass extinction events. Just because smaller changes have not had much effect in regards to extinction does not mean that larger changes will do the same.

Along the same lines, that the hot water from your tap isn't hot enough to hurt you when you wash your hands doesn't mean it won't hurt if you plunge your hand into boiling water.
 
2014-05-06 03:53:02 PM
Yes, I've heard all the equivocations. If the weather gets hotter, it means global warming. If it gets colder, that also means global warming. Any weather change at all is clear evidence of global warming.

Vague arguments are awesome...they're impossible to lose.
 
2014-05-06 04:03:08 PM

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations. If the weather gets hotter, it means global warming. If it gets colder, that also means global warming. Any weather change at all is clear evidence of global warming.

Vague arguments are awesome...they're impossible to lose.



It's more that weather isn't the same as climate. Individual instances of weather do not say much about climate one way or another, and the existence of such individual events is not inconsistent with global warming. Put in a more general way, single events do not say much about longer-term trends. It's this sort of fine distinction that may be where your perception of vagueness comes from.

Changes over time, however, as the changes you were previously talking about, are a bit different in that they're talking about a sufficient amount of time in which we can draw inferences about longer-term climate (again, not the same as short-term weather).

As in many things, the details actually matter. If arguments seem vague to you, be sure it's not because the source you're looking at only describes these things superficially.
 
2014-05-06 04:05:17 PM

JeffDenver: OMG! The Climate has never changed before! The Earth's climate was always static before now! Everybody panic!


People have died before. So, if a group of men with guns start shooting up your house, don't panic. (Or complain! Or even try to get out of the way!) It's just like before. It can't help but be just like before. People have died. That's just how it is.
 
2014-05-06 04:18:27 PM
Why do the same intellectually dishonest dumbasses always come into these threads and post the same, tired stupidity?
 
2014-05-06 04:20:24 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Why do the same intellectually dishonest dumbasses always come into these threads and post the same, tired stupidity?


Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!
 
2014-05-06 04:35:42 PM

JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!


Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

memedepot.com



Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.


Like these?
 
2014-05-06 04:54:35 PM

JeffDenver: ArcadianRefugee: Why do the same intellectually dishonest dumbasses always come into these threads and post the same, tired stupidity?

Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!



Be aware that the post you're responding to is in itself a response to a poster that has, indeed, been posting pretty much the same thing again and again over the course of years and is in the habit of ignoring when it's debunked. It's the "Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" of climate change threads. For all intents and purposes, the characterization of "intellectually dishonest" and "same" and "tired" is pretty much correct and it is this, not the act of disagreement that is objectionable.
 
2014-05-06 04:56:17 PM

abb3w: JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!

Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]

Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.

Like these?


LOL, your crybaby picture applies to you more than me. Wipe away those tears, it's just an opinion. No one murdered your mother.

i290.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-06 05:02:42 PM
How dare us deniers not take this VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE seriously! Who do we think we are? Global Warming™ is an extremely important issue that we should be very concerned about. And it is profoundly offensive that we do not take it as seriously as you do.

www.politicsforum.org
 
2014-05-06 05:17:52 PM

JeffDenver: abb3w: JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!

Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]

Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.

Like these?

LOL, your crybaby picture applies to you more than me. Wipe away those tears, it's just an opinion. No one murdered your mother.

[i290.photobucket.com image 600x450]


JeffDenver: How dare us deniers not take this VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE seriously! Who do we think we are? Global Warming™ is an extremely important issue that we should be very concerned about. And it is profoundly offensive that we do not take it as seriously as you do.

[www.politicsforum.org image 576x481]



It's not us who is complaining about perceived persecution. The counter-arguments I for one presented still stand here and here, and you're still more than welcome to address them, or present new arguments.
.
While you don't have to take the issue seriously, you do give up a certain claim to the rational, evidence-driven high ground when you do so. That's fine, it's a heavy subject, and this is FARK after all. I just caution against starting out seriously then abandoning it as sour grapes after having one's arguments soundly refuted.
 
2014-05-06 05:28:29 PM

Damnhippyfreak: While you don't have to take the issue seriously, you do give up a certain claim to the rational, evidence-driven high ground when you do so.


And Fark is definitely the place to post rational arguments. Because everyone on here is very mature and logical and accepting of alternative viewpoints.

LOL, Just kidding. Fark threads are basically like a Pedophile running a preschool. It is always a mistake to expect a serious rational discussion in here. Especially if the Fark peanut gallery doesn't agree with you.
 
2014-05-06 05:50:55 PM

JeffDenver: Damnhippyfreak: While you don't have to take the issue seriously, you do give up a certain claim to the rational, evidence-driven high ground when you do so.

And Fark is definitely the place to post rational arguments. Because everyone on here is very mature and logical and accepting of alternative viewpoints.

LOL, Just kidding. Fark threads are basically like a Pedophile running a preschool. It is always a mistake to expect a serious rational discussion in here. Especially if the Fark peanut gallery doesn't agree with you.



That's just fine. Just be aware that sometimes you can have a mature and logical discussion in here that does accept alternative viewpoints.  The thing is that you actually have to discuss things mature and logically yourself in order for that to work. Not addressing the arguments presented and instead denouncing the thread and playing the victim is not conducive to this.
 
2014-05-06 05:57:31 PM

JeffDenver: abb3w: JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!

Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]

Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.

Like these?

LOL, your crybaby picture applies to you more than me. Wipe away those tears, it's just an opinion. No one murdered your mother.

[i290.photobucket.com image 600x450]


I murdered your mother last night.

With my penis.
 
2014-05-06 05:57:41 PM

JeffDenver: ArcadianRefugee: Why do the same intellectually dishonest dumbasses always come into these threads and post the same, tired stupidity?

Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!


If by "disagreement" you mean something like this:

X: Wrong, because 1!
Y: Well, no. See 9.
X: But 1! Ha!
Y: Uhm, I just showed you 9, which refutes 1. There's also 7, 12, and 14.
X: 1!
Y: But one is only part of 3 and doesn't accurately represent it. Especially if you consider 4--
X: 1!!!!

Then yes, "disagreement will not be tolerated".

If knucklehead over there brings something new to the table, instead of insisting that, somehow, his graph means a damned thing, maybe someone will listen to him.

abb3w: if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.


They don't, which was the point.

But maybe somehow you'll be the one to convince them.
 
2014-05-06 06:04:57 PM

yakmans_dad: You seem to think that AGW won't have any social/political effects.


What gives you that idea? Look at our history. Wars and times of crisis have a tendency of speeding up our technological development. Just look at WWI and WWII. (and yes, there was plenty of unrest in both cases)
 
2014-05-06 06:08:11 PM

TyrantII: JeffDenver: abb3w: JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!

Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]

Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.

Like these?

LOL, your crybaby picture applies to you more than me. Wipe away those tears, it's just an opinion. No one murdered your mother.

[i290.photobucket.com image 600x450]

I murdered your mother last night.

With my penis.


I know, we got it on the security cam. She died laughing.
 
2014-05-06 06:13:52 PM

JeffDenver: TyrantII: JeffDenver: abb3w: JeffDenver: Yes! Burn the witches! Disagreement will not be tolerated!

Disagreement will be challenged, to experimentally determine its (and your) classification -- reflective versus reflective, widely informed versus shallowly informed, eruditely eloquent versus ineptly incoherent, and so on.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]

Granted, you'll also be insulted; however, if you ignore the likes of ArcadianRefugee and pay more attention to responding to the points raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade.

JeffDenver: Yes, I've heard all the equivocations.

Like these?

LOL, your crybaby picture applies to you more than me. Wipe away those tears, it's just an opinion. No one murdered your mother.

[i290.photobucket.com image 600x450]

I murdered your mother last night.

With my penis.

I know, we got it on the security cam. She died laughing.


Yeah, but then he just did it again.
 
2014-05-06 07:20:16 PM

JeffDenver: Damnhippyfreak: While you don't have to take the issue seriously, you do give up a certain claim to the rational, evidence-driven high ground when you do so.

And Fark is definitely the place to post rational arguments. Because everyone on here is very mature and logical and accepting of alternative viewpoints.

LOL, Just kidding. Fark threads are basically like a Pedophile running a preschool. It is always a mistake to expect a serious rational discussion in here. Especially if the Fark peanut gallery doesn't agree with you.


It used to be better, but it has certainly become more chaotic.  You won't find much for rationality in this politics tab spill over topic.

abb3w: responding to the points  disingenuine fallacies raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade. not be mocked in a blunt manner, but in a more round about way so as to not blatantly break fark posting rules.


Sure, he makes points, but like the pedo in that preschool who does incidentally teach some of the time to try and make it look like he's innocent, he'll also come up with some zany fallacies, tantamount to the pedo's claims that it was consensual.(ie twisting the kid's words to mean what he wants them to mean).  He handles allegations about as well as a pedo teacher would too(which is to say badly).
 
2014-05-06 07:37:51 PM

omeganuepsilon: abb3w: responding to the points disingenuine fallacies raised by the likes of Damnhippyfreak, you have an excellent opportunity to persuade. not be mocked in a blunt manner, but in a more round about way so as to not blatantly break fark posting rules.

Sure, he makes points, but like the pedo in that preschool who does incidentally teach some of the time to try and make it look like he's innocent, he'll also come up with some zany fallacies, tantamount to the pedo's claims that it was consensual.(ie twisting the kid's words to mean what he wants them to mean). He handles allegations about as well as a pedo teacher would too(which is to say badly).



If you think I've gotten something wrong now or in the past, you're more than welcome to bring it up so we can address it. I do make mistakes from time to time and do appreciate it when it's brought to my attention.

As for mocking, I do tend to sneak in jabs here and there, but I try not to let it be central to my argument. I mean, some arguments are so bad that they almost need to be mocked. However, if you feel you've been wronged by a particular post, let me know and we can discuss it.
 
2014-05-06 08:01:02 PM
I like how he strives to sound genuine and honest here, but never really is when in the middle of a thread.

Ooh, people are paying attention, better be on my bestest behavior!

/snerk
 
2014-05-06 08:14:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: I like how he strives to sound genuine and honest here, but never really is when in the middle of a thread.

Ooh, people are paying attention, better be on my bestest behavior!

/snerk


I'd like to think I'm like this regardless of the position in a thread, but again, if you think I've wronged you in some way you're more than welcome to bring up the instance so we can resolve it.

I'm extending a friendly hand here, but you gotta come through on the other side!
 
2014-05-06 09:17:29 PM

Lord Dimwit: Oh wait, they did. Nobody thinks climate change is going to exterminate the human species, but it sure as hell might destroy technological civilization which I, for one, am fond of.


It's not a problem.

media.boingboing.net
 
2014-05-06 10:56:21 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: yakmans_dad: When the heat/drought whammy hits the US and Canada, then the US will suddenly find the will  to do the right thing. (That's my prediction at least.)

If the bulk ( pun intended ) of the population can't be kept fat, dumb*, and happy with cheap energy, and more importantly, cheap food, then yeah, we'll be forced to do the "right thing"....


*with mass media


"Fat, Dumb and Happy" is the name of my movie.
 
Displayed 136 of 136 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report