A fair bit. For starters, our imprint on the geological record already rivals that of the asteroid that took out the dinos.
The (f) left comment was towards anti elite's comments about the right. My concern is what if any effect does Man have on the enviroment?
No doubt, I'm pretty sure about that without looking it up. We have dominated the planet.
I'll be more specific. How has man attributed to global warming.
Global warming is something scientist agree on. BUT does man's activities have an effect? The vast majority of scientist do not believe this.
Ok, now can you please show me where you read this? Because it is patently false. There is, in fact, a minority viewpoint that says that while mankind's actions act as an acceleration of natural processes, it is not solely (or even primarily) to blame for the trend. That's not the same as "not our fault".
Also, your point about the left wanting corporations to do well, so the government can tax it, and how that explains why the left is against carbon fuel...how does that work? The move towards sustainable energy, i.e. away from carbon fuel, would COST corporations money because, for the most part, you and I wouldn't need to rely on power companies for energy. It decentralizes the power grid.
I'll be more specific. How has man attributed to global warming.
*blink*
Are you serious?
Isn't it funny that the USA are the only western country where the science community majority viewpoint of human-induced global warming encounters such outspoken resistance ?
Elsewhere, except one or two voices (including one previous french secretary of state for science who happens to NOT being a climatologist) nobody's left to seriously challenge the accumulated data about the reality of the human impact on climate. The debate only focus on the extent of the impact and the velocity of change (which seems to be quicker than hoped, alas).
A steady or large rise in gun sales is a good indicator, especially if many of the guns are made in this country.
It would be great if CT's gun industry fully revived. There are a lot of folks in towns like Hartford who could use a chance at those jobs.
The trick is, it's "scientists", not "Climate scientists" or "scientists working in the field". When you ask scientists about something outside of their field, they have no more authority than anyone else.
Or maybe "Christian Scientists"
heh
stuff
Bonjour, Comrade Le Couard!
The trick is, it's "scientists", not "Climate scientists" or "scientists working in the field". When you ask scientists about something outside of their field, they have no more authority than anyone else.
Or maybe "Christian Scientists"
heh
.
Clue me in on what the bet is here -- I mean, why do we care?
1. Climate Change is false: Ok. Who cares? I sure don't.
2. Climate Change is true: Ok. Again, who cares? I don't.
.
Apres moi, le deluge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Global warming is something scientist agree on. BUT does man's activities have an effect? The vast majority of scientist do not believe this.
So called Right wing organizations have done much for the enviroment. For example, you mentioned hunting regulations. Hunting organizations work for conditions that allow the environment to support that activity. They are true conservationists.
Some did, some did not. The idea of running out of wildlife was once as controversial as anthropocentric climate change. Oddly enough the people saying it would never run out were the ones who wanted to continue to kill birds to make ladies hats.
This makes more sense. The government makes huge amounts of money taxing corporations for the energy they supply. Government is the winner not the corporations when it comes to profits.
... this makes no sense what so ever. It is in fact crazy enough to be the material component of a fireball spell. The government wants to make money taxing corporate profit, so it does something to make the corporation .... less profitable?
If you're going to resort to a conspiracy theory to avoid dealing with the facts at least make the conspiracy theory make sense from SOME angle.
As to what humans are doing, our entire society has been built around
1) Burning things (in its modern form, gas) and
2) Cutting down trees.
We have simultaneously added more CO2 to the atmosphere AND reduced one of the things that took the CO2 out of it.
We know that C02 levels are the strongest correlation we have for temperature- even when Antarctica got more sunlight it was STILL colder with less CO2.
Why don't you care? It's certainly going to affect you. Unless you're planning on dying soon anyway.
I don't think so. If you live in a western, industrialized nation it will be a degree or two warmer but thats it. You'll have 2 really big droughts/rains in your life instead of 1, but it will be neigh indistinguishable from the fickle hand of fate.
It also will matter if you like looking at glaciers and snow.
The (f) left comment was towards anti elite's comments about the right. My concern is what if any effect does Man have on the environment?Could you please convince me that the Koch brothers, who are the primary funders of the Tea Party, are liberal lefties.Climate science is so complicated its shocking you and the (f)left wing think they know.
Did you know global cooling was all the rage in the 70's?
You're also making a point that people who believe in man-made global warming are predominantly lefties. So, I provided a counterpoint, that scientists funded by the Koch brothers also agree that global warming is man-made.
The Koch brothers are fiercely conservative. They don't fund liberal organisations, seeing as how their political contributes all go to republicans and tea party candidates. They wouldn't fund scientists with a liberal agenda.
Therefore, your statement is patently false, because of the actions of the third and fourth richest men in the world.
Also, 98% of climatologists believe global warming is man-made. At least according to a 2011 survey of climatologists who have published material on climatology.
The trick is, it's "scientists", not "Climate scientists" or "scientists working in the field". When you ask scientists about something outside of their field, they have no more authority than anyone else.
Or maybe "Christian Scientists"
heh.
Clue me in on what the bet is here -- I mean, why do we care?
1. Climate Change is false: Ok. Who cares? I sure don't.
2. Climate Change is true: Ok. Again, who cares? I don't.
.
If you live on some other planet, I guess you wouldn't care about the climate here on Earth. But if you do live on Earth, the climate directly impacts you and your life.
If you buy or grow food, the climate directly impacts your life.
Global warming is something scientist agree on. BUT does man's activities have an effect? The vast majority of scientist do not believe this.So called Right wing organizations have done much for the enviroment. For example, you mentioned hunting regulations. Hunting organizations work for conditions that allow the environment to support that activity. They are true conservationists.Some did, some did not. The idea of running out of wildlife was once as controversial as anthropocentric climate change. Oddly enough the people saying it would never run out were the ones who wanted to continue to kill birds to make ladies hats.
This makes more sense. The government makes huge amounts of money taxing corporations for the energy they supply. Government is the winner not the corporations when it comes to profits.... this makes no sense what so ever. It is in fact crazy enough to be the material component of a fireball spell. The government wants to make money taxing corporate profit, so it does something to make the corporation .... less profitable?
If you're going to resort to a conspiracy theory to avoid dealing with the facts at least make the conspiracy theory make sense from SOME angle.
As to what humans are doing, our entire society has been built around
1) Burning things (in its modern form, gas) and
2) Cutting down trees.We have simultaneously added more CO2 to the atmosphere AND reduced one of the things that took the CO2 out of it.
We know that C02 levels are the strongest correlation we have for temperature- even when Antarctica got more sunlight it was STILL colder with less CO2.
Lets say you are correct and ALL the sources you sited are correct. How much effect do humans have on the enviroment? How many .01 of a degree will the temperature go up? Do I have to sell my apartment in Manhattan because it will be underwater in 5 years?
Regarding goverment and energy prices, yes governement is the big winner. Its not a conspiracy theory. .TWO cent a gallon profit!
Global warming is something scientist agree on. BUT does man's activities have an effect? The vast majority of scientist do not believe this.So called Right wing organizations have done much for the enviroment. For example, you mentioned hunting regulations. Hunting organizations work for conditions that allow the environment to support that activity. They are true conservationists.Some did, some did not. The idea of running out of wildlife was once as controversial as anthropocentric climate change. Oddly enough the people saying it would never run out were the ones who wanted to continue to kill birds to make ladies hats.
This makes more sense. The government makes huge amounts of money taxing corporations for the energy they supply. Government is the winner not the corporations when it comes to profits.... this makes no sense what so ever. It is in fact crazy enough to be the material component of a fireball spell. The government wants to make money taxing corporate profit, so it does something to make the corporation .... less profitable?
If you're going to resort to a conspiracy theory to avoid dealing with the facts at least make the conspiracy theory make sense from SOME angle.
As to what humans are doing, our entire society has been built around
1) Burning things (in its modern form, gas) and
2) Cutting down trees.We have simultaneously added more CO2 to the atmosphere AND reduced one of the things that took the CO2 out of it.
We know that C02 levels are the strongest correlation we have for temperature- even when Antarctica got more sunlight it was STILL colder with less CO2.
Opposing views on climate change.
Isn't it funny that the USA are the only western country where the science community majority viewpoint of human-induced global warming encounters such outspoken resistance ?
Elsewhere, except one or two voices (including one previous french secretary of state for science who happens to NOT being a climatologist) nobody's left to seriously challenge the accumulated data about the reality of the human impact on climate. The debate only focus on the extent of the impact and the velocity of change (which seems to be quicker than hoped, alas).
Americans are Not funny, they are Smart and full of gumption! This guy is funny!
Hateful 1/2 man
"Climate change" is an interesting topic isn't it!??! The climate is always changing. So it's a fairly inaccurate title for problems facing the planet. Human agency definitely contributes to pollution, which I challenge anyone to say is not a "bad thing" for humans as part of ecology, and ecology on this planet.
I hate the term "climate change" for this reason - because it drags people into circuitous arguments like those entered into earnestly above.
I have a sinmple proposition for "climate change" "sceptics". By all means, go outside and turn a diesel powered or internal combustion automobile on. Breathe in the fumes for 10 - 15 minutes. Imagine you are a bird, tree, fish, plankton, algae, or if you are brave, human being.
Now, tell me how good you feel. If you don't think it's making the air quality worse, then do you think it's making you or the environment healthier? Expand this "pollution" (I'm not coining this term by the way) out to much of industrialised fossil fuel derived human agency. Whether or not "man" has "changed the climate" is beside the point. Extinctions, habitat loss, rising sea levels, loss of biodiversity - these are real and "wrongbadfun" regardless of their impact on "climatechange".
Not supporting alternatives to "polluting activities" is a little bit silly. Arguing about the nature of the "changing" climate is like arguing about what color hat to wear in the face of an avalanche or tidal wave.
Don't get bogged down trying to argue with sceptics. Rather, tell them to suck on car fumes, and see if they still think THAT's a good thing.
Lets say you are correct and ALL the sources you sited are correct. How much effect do humans have on the enviroment?
A hell of a lot. What % of the worlds trees are still there?
How many .01 of a degree will the temperature go up?
In how long?
Do I have to sell my apartment in Manhattan because it will be underwater in 5 years?
1)You're getting your water from the catskills, which will not get too dry to keep supplying you
2) No. Manhattan will be fine for your lifetime. At the very worst you'll have slightly increased chance water pushed into some subway tunnels during a rather large storm.
Regarding goverment and energy prices, yes governement is the big winner. Its not a conspiracy theory. .TWO cent a gallon profit
Listen to me very carefully, because you think you're answering me and you're not.
I am not asking how does government make money off of ENERGY.
I am asking how the climatologists are making money off of the global warming 'scam'. Whats in it for them?
If they are inexplicably all being controlled by the government, what does the government get out of people using LESS gas?
California makes 66 cents per gallon of gas. If you buy 1,000 gallons a year, california makes 660 dollars.
California launches a scary DOOoooOOOOm and GlooOOOoOOOOOOOom climate change offensive public awareness campaign, so you car pool, cut down on driving, and get a mountain bike and a hybrid. you then only buy 800 gallons of gas a year. California then gets 528 dollars.... so it spent money/ mind control capitol... to cost itself 132 bucks.
To answer the last question.
The global warming alarmists are attempting to use cap & trade.
Along with that businesses ranging from fast food restaurants to grocery stores around the nation are paying fees to local and state Enviromental offices for having combustion equipment like HVACS & grills. Its a money grab and they will twist the data to support their argument.
To answer the last question.
The global warming alarmists are attempting to use cap & trade.
Along with that businesses ranging from fast food restaurants to grocery stores around the nation are paying fees to local and state Enviromental offices for having combustion equipment like HVACS & grills. Its a money grab and they will twist the data to support their argument.
Again you're not explaining how they profit from getting people to use LESS carbon fuel.
Also, "global warming alarmists" I guess would include me. But I'm against cap and trade, because it is an economically disastrous model that would only create a financial bubble the size of New Brunswick, allowing billionares to create value out of thin air.
Why on earth are you against, say, a transition to sustainable energy (primarily wind and solar)? It will save YOU money, it will decentralize the energy infrastructure such that big energy corporations can't monetize it, and it gets the government out of your hair.
I'm not against renewable energy so long as it is economical and better than what we have now. I've seen studies that show a ratio of 3-1 when it comes to producing renewable energy. Meaning to make 1 "unit" of renewable energy it takes 3 "units" of gas, electric, nuclear.
I don't think Americans are using less energy, gov't is taxing it to try and discourage its use and give rise to expensive alternative energies that are not ready for mass production.
Gov't should not be in that business and gov't should stay out of the way when it comes to planning economies. Let the market drive demand.
I'm not against renewable energy so long as it is economical and better than what we have now. I've seen studies that show a ratio of 3-1 when it comes to producing renewable energy. Meaning to make 1 "unit" of renewable energy it takes 3 "units" of gas, electric, nuclear.
I don't think Americans are using less energy, gov't is taxing it to try and discourage its use and give rise to expensive alternative energies that are not ready for mass production.
Gov't should not be in that business and gov't should stay out of the way when it comes to planning economies. Let the market drive demand.
Few things.
How can extracting oil from the ground cost LESS than: the sun. It's there all the goddamn time dude. Energies not ready for mass production? The sun has been burning for billions and billions of years.Market drive demand? You mean the oligopoly of big energy corporate giants that have a vested interest in the status quo? Why, pray tell, would they mess up a good thing they have? Why would they promote an energy source they can neither control nor profit from?
The government IS there to act as a countercyclical force, and to deal with externalities and other market failures. Collusion, whether directed by corporate board members or simply a confluence of interests, is a market failure. The market has failed. Got that?
I'm not against renewable energy so long as it is economical and better than what we have now. I've seen studies that show a ratio of 3-1 when it comes to producing renewable energy. Meaning to make 1 "unit" of renewable energy it takes 3 "units" of gas, electric, nuclear.
I don't think Americans are using less energy, gov't is taxing it to try and discourage its use and give rise to expensive alternative energies that are not ready for mass production.
Gov't should not be in that business and gov't should stay out of the way when it comes to planning economies. Let the market drive demand.
Lets ignore the climate change for a second.
Particles in the air increase the chance that children develop asthma. Burning fossil fuels is proven to create particles in the air. Who exactly is paying for the life time treatment of these increased number of asthma cases? At what step of the market forces, is this accounted for?
I don't want some theoretical. I want a link to where exactly Exxon is sending the money and how much money they are sending and how it is being used to treat the increased rates of respiratory illness.
I don't think Americans are using less energy, gov't is taxing it to try and discourage its use and give rise to expensive alternative energies that are not ready for mass production.
WHY?
How on earth do you make money discouraging the thing you make money off of? Show me the math, show me an example. You are trying to discredit the vast majority of well respected scientists in their area of expertise. You think you know this better than they do but you can't seem to deal with a concept as simple as a motivation for the conspiracy.
The trick is, it's "scientists", not "Climate scientists" or "scientists working in the field". When you ask scientists about something outside of their field, they have no more authority than anyone else.
Or maybe "Christian Scientists"
heh.
Clue me in on what the bet is here -- I mean, why do we care?
1. Climate Change is false: Ok. Who cares? I sure don't.
2. Climate Change is true: Ok. Again, who cares? I don't.
.
Why don't you care? It's certainly going to affect you. Unless you're planning on dying soon anyway.
Or am I missing your point?
.
I'm not trying to determine which side wins, I'm just trying to find out
what each side is fighting for.
I am trying to figure out what the bet is (or the payoff). There are two
sides having an argument, and I'm trying to figure out what it is each
side is expecting to win?
Let's examine both sides:
1. Climate Change is True: Ok. So what did the "global warming" people win? And what did the "no global warming" people lose?
OR,
2. Climate Change is False: Ok. So what did the "no global warming" people win, and what did the "global warming" people lose?
My point is what is the question; what is each side trying to win?
.
I'm not trying to determine which side wins, I'm just trying to find out
what each side is fighting for.
.
.
I see. So it really does boil down to "Spend money now" vs. "Spend money
later". (Translation: a transfer of power.)
I thought it had to do with money, but all the 'human causes' vs.
'natural cycles' debates were obfuscating things. Meaning, I thought we
were arguing if people caused things to happen on planet Earth, or if
they were only natural cycles -- and I couldn't figure out why anybody
wanted to fight about splitting hairs to such a degree.
My belief is it's a mixture of both. The Earth has natural cycles, but as
humans transform their environment we effect things.
Thanks :)
.
|
To answer the last question.
The global warming alarmists are attempting to use cap & trade.
Along with that businesses ranging from fast food restaurants to grocery stores around the nation are paying fees to local and state Enviromental offices for having combustion equipment like HVACS & grills. Its a money grab and they will twist the data to support their argument.
Climate change is a vast conspiracy to profit local and state governments through fees on grills and HVAC equipment?
Thank you, I'm sure that's the funniest thing I'm going to read all day. :)
|
This has gotten off the topic of guns real quick. The thing is, I hardly spend my time discussing global warming any more, for much the same reason I don't discuss evolution with Creationists. (Confused people who are the victim of a public school system whose waters have been muddied by Creationists, yes, but not the dyed in the wool sort.)
The facts are so greatly on the side of global warming (I refuse to use the B.S. term Climate Change, brought to you by Newspeaking Republicans and Blue Dogs who wanted to give us something that sounded less 'threatening'.) that to deny it at this point requires you be firmly committed to the delusion.
To repeat an old expression, "You cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." (I've heard it credited to Carl Sagan, Ben Goldacre, and ironically Ayn Rand, the paragon of unreasonable assumptions) Some people are going to remain convinced the earth is 6,000 years old, whites are oppressed, Christians are persecuted every time we acknowledge gays are people, and global warming isn't happening. These claims are so baseless in fact that there is no good argument with them. You may as well argue whether the moon is made of cheese.
------
Back to the main topic, though, I've very little to say about guns but I would say that any thinking person should consider dropping their NRA membership. It's hardly about gun rights and much more an organization of racists (Simply look at their difference in treatment of George Zimmerman and John McNeil for a good example of this) and conspiracy theorists.
I refuse to use the B.S. term Climate Change, brought to you by Newspeaking Republicans and Blue Dogs who wanted to give us something that sounded less 'threatening'.
I don't believe that's the case at all. Climate change is simply more accurate. The global temperature may rise, but that's not a useful measure of the impact of climate change globally. For example, northern Europe may indeed cool (and we saw record snow there last winter). What is a useful measure of climate change, at least to the layman, is weather EXTREMES. Like the national drought we are currently experiencing, or the unseasonable March we had, or the aforementioned and unprecedented snowfall in northern Europe. Or more hurricanes, tornadoes and tropical storms. These are appreciable and noticeable occurrences, whereas a 0.1 average temperature increase isn't.
I always think that on issues such as Global Warming, it is better to err on the side of caution.
Back to the main topic, though, I've very little to say about guns but I would say that any thinking person should consider dropping their NRA membership. It's hardly about gun rights and much more an organization of racists (Simply look at their difference in treatment of George Zimmerman and John McNeil for a good example of this) and conspiracy theorists.
I am personally not a member of the NRA.
A friend of mine who is an owner of a variety of guns and a far leftist told me that if you look at the NRA's report cards, they are about much more than voting records on gun control, but I've never bothered to verify this because I don't really care.
My other friend who is an owner of a variety of guns and a far leftist and an NRA member said that he likes the discounts on ammo.
|
|
I refuse to use the B.S. term Climate Change, brought to you by Newspeaking Republicans and Blue Dogs who wanted to give us something that sounded less 'threatening'.I don't believe that's the case at all. Climate change is simply more accurate. The global temperature may rise, but that's not a useful measure of the impact of climate change globally. For example, northern Europe may indeed cool (and we saw record snow there last winter). What is a useful measure of climate change, at least to the layman, is weather EXTREMES. Like the national drought we are currently experiencing, or the unseasonable March we had, or the aforementioned and unprecedented snowfall in northern Europe. Or more hurricanes, tornadoes and tropical storms. These are appreciable and noticeable occurrences, whereas a 0.1 average temperature increase isn't.
While Climate Change and Global Warming are actually two distinct things, the reason why Climate Change became popularized in the national discussion is because of Republican political strategist Frank Luntz encouraging GOP congressmen to use the term.
Climate Change might be more accurate to describe the overall EFFECT of our environmental miasma, but global warming is the correct term for the CAUSE.
Climate Change might be more accurate to describe the overall EFFECT of our environmental miasma, but global warming is the correct term for the CAUSE.
If we're talking about strategies, then I think Climate Change works in our favor at this point in time. People who are even moderately scientifically literate understand the broad consensus about climate change/global warming. Those who are not scientifically literate will say things like George Will did last week.
At this point in time it's easy for people to deny global warming, or at least to dismiss it, by saying "oh it'll be a couple degrees warmer. big deal. get over it." People are less inclined to accept the ongoing decimation of US agriculture, drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, etc.
Climate change means a change in expectations and reliability in weather patterns to everyone. It's unpredictable.
The people we are relying on to vote and behave economically in a rational way are unswayed by the cause (global warming) but ARE able to see and feel the overall EFFECT.
Climate Gate anyone?
When the scandal broke, I submitted a fair analysis on these boards, in response to the gloating (and totally erroneous) claims that the hacked emails somehow "invalidated" the research. In essence, I'm against hiding emails, and very much against hiding data; I think the scientists in charge adopted a siege mentality and acted foolishly. However, that has everything to do with their reaction to stress, and nothing at all to do with the validity of their research.
Maybe Citizen Aretas is a Poe after all?
Maybe Citizen Aretas is a Poe after all?
What is a Poe?