Avernus Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yes, crap in a hole and live in a cave and "tax the crap" out of everything.Clearly, I'm the one freaking out. Or, maybe it makes sense to stop assuming a subsidized oil economy is the only option. Maybe when I say it that way, I sound like the rational one and you with your "crap crap crap Have to agree here!" are the one freaking out. he's clearly using sarcasm, stop being so stiff.... and oil is probably the worst option that I can think of.....but we don't need to tax this and that to use an alternative..... Obama should be focusing on switching to something cleaner and like I said before "not because of 'Global warming' or 'Climate Change', but just to clean up our act if anything....we are a hazard to other life on this planet with our filth" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 he's clearly using sarcasm, stop being so stiff.... and oil is probably the worst option that I can think of.....but we don't need to tax this and that to use an alternative..... Obama should be focusing on switching to something cleaner and like I said before "not because of 'Global warming' or 'Climate Change', but just to clean up our act if anything....we are a hazard to other life on this planet with our filth" but CO2 isn't really "filth". it's just a common gas that all life either utilizes or generates. if we want to have a discussion about things that actually pollute the air and water, great...but CO2 isn't part of that. "cleaner" and "emits less CO2" are not exactly the same thing. CO2 is either going to destroy all of human civilization if governments don't say they will limit their yearly output of it by 20% in the next four months Have to agree here!!!!1! or it is just really not a hugh problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You are right about Science being about challenging common conception. But to insinuate that Science isn't advanced forward on universally held beliefs/ideas/consensus opinions (whatever you want to refer to it as) isn't accurate by any means. Those beliefs and ideas are often upended in time. All I'm saying is that the "we have a consensus" crowd is shouting from a political platform, not a scientific one. There's lots of evience pointing to different causes. Climate change is a multi-faceted problem with likely multi-faceted solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 but CO2 isn't really "filth". it's just a common gas that all life either utilizes or generates. if we want to have a discussion about things that actually pollute the air and water, great...but CO2 isn't part of that. "cleaner" and "emits less CO2" are not exactly the same thing. CO2 is either going to destroy all of human civilization if governments don't say they will limit their yearly output of it by 20% in the next four months Have to agree here!!!!1! or it is just really not a hugh problem. I should clarify that I am talking about pollution as a whole and not just CO2 emissions.... the damage that we are doing to the ocean and on land as well is just as much at fault here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Those beliefs and ideas are often upended in time. All I'm saying is that the "we have a consensus" crowd is shouting from a political platform, not a scientific one. There's lots of evience pointing to different causes. Climate change is a multi-faceted problem with likely multi-faceted solutions. You're conveniently ignoring 2 facts: - It's politicized on both sides - The crowd shouting we have a consensus, are the world's leading experts on the issue. There were beliefs that said the world was flat, there was Science that told us it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You're conveniently ignoring 2 facts: - It's politicized on both sides - The crowd shouting we have a consensus, are the world's leading experts on the issue. There were beliefs that said the world was flat, there was Science that told us it wasn't. believing the world was flat is a myth.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You're catching on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You're catching on. I mean that nobody believed it....the whole story was made up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Those beliefs and ideas are often upended in time. All I'm saying is that the "we have a consensus" crowd is shouting from a political platform, not a scientific one. There's lots of evience pointing to different causes. Climate change is a multi-faceted problem with likely multi-faceted solutions. 1. "'we have a consensus' crowd is shouting" - I dare you to find the last thread started around here about climate change that was started by someone who believed in it rather than someone trying to debunk it. (No fair if it was Randall, because nobody reads him anyway) 2. There may be lots of evidence pointing to other causes. But, the very large majority of climate scientists in the world agree that man is affecting change on the climate and that we can do something to minimize the damage. That is the consensus. To imply otherwise is to deny the reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 1. "'we have a consensus' crowd is shouting" - I dare you to find the last thread started around here about climate change that was started by someone who believed in it rather than someone trying to debunk it. (No fair if it was Randall, because nobody reads him anyway) 2. There may be lots of evidence pointing to other causes. But, the very large majority of climate scientists in the world agree that man is affecting change on the climate and that we can do something to minimize the damage. That is the consensus. To imply otherwise is to deny the reality. of course we affect "climate change"...but exactly how much of it is man made?.... what is it less than 10%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 what is the impact (both negative AND positive) on cities, ecosystems, etc. of, say, 1 degree greater global average temperature? what is the impact of 2 degrees, 5 degrees, and so on? accordingly, what exactly is the optimal temperature we should be shooting for? is it lower than it is now? higher? EXACTLY what it is now, or was 50 years ago, or will be 50 years from now? and how much is human activity really contributing? there is a clear incentive to overestimate that impact, IMO, because those kinds of findings get you more money, more attention, etc. the earth appears to have actually been cooling the last several years. now that doesn't totally invalidate the idea of anthropogenic warming, but it sure doesn't bolster it either. how many of those climate projection computer models we hear so much about predicted cooling over this past decade? I'm guessing none of them. lastly, what can we do to reduce or reverse the effects of undesireable warming (or cooling), and what are the costs? what is the bang for the buck? who ends up bearing the brunt of those costs? Then there is nothing to discuss with you on the subject. Fair enough. Tha'ts pretty dismissive of maybe the post important question in the entire debate. If we're going to spend Billions (maybe Trillions) world-wide in the name of combating Climate Change, I'd like to know what the goal is and why. What temperature should the planet be? What is ideal? If it fluctuates up or down from that ideal goal, what kind of fluctuation is acceptable? Let's say the global temperature goes down consistently for a year. Do we spend a bunch of money to try counteract that? Maybe a year isn't long enough. What if the global temperature goes down for a decade? Do we spend a bunch of money to try to counteract it then? Or what if it goes up? What exactly are we trying to get our global temperature to be? If we don't have that answer, then how do we know that any action on our part is the correct action? That's so not the post important question in the debate. The question is what price are we willing to pay to be the best custodians of the planet that we can? Apparently for many that line is drawn somewhere above a civic's 0-60 time for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 of course we affect "climate change"...but exactly how much of it is man made?.... what is it less than 10%? In 2001 the Third Assessment Report (TAR) refined (their previous statement), saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_o..._climate_change That article also has planetary physicists and astronomers basically laughing at the notion that Mars' global warming is related to Earth's problems in a meaningful way. But you know those guys... always so politically motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 In 2001 the Third Assessment Report (TAR) refined (their previous statement), saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_o..._climate_change That article also has planetary physicists and astronomers basically laughing at the notion that Mars' global warming is related to Earth's problems in a meaningful way. But you know those guys... always so politically motivated. so the fact that Mars was in an ice age and now has melting caps at the same time we have melting caps...also being a neighboring planet means absolutely nothing?... I believe that most of this is sun/planetary related and partially human related.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 so the fact that Mars was in an ice age and now has melting caps at the same time we have melting caps...also being a neighboring planet means absolutely nothing?... I believe that most of this is sun/planetary related and partially human related.... So you've decided to disregard what scientists are saying and go with your gut. I respect that, but I can't argue against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 So you've decided to disregard what scientists are saying and go with your gut. I respect that, but I can't argue against it. who says it's my gut?....the scientists are the one saying what is going on with Mars the same time we are experiencing something similar... you're a wackjob....through and through... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 So you've decided to disregard what scientists are saying and go with your gut. I respect that, but I can't argue against it. here's one that links them together, found after a 5 second search. surely there are more, don'tcha think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 here's one that links them together, found after a 5 second search. surely there are more, don'tcha think? no, only the scientists he talks about count... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I mean that nobody believed it....the whole story was made up... u may want to go read up on some history ....... Then, there is a not yet addressed religious component to all this. At some point there will be backlash from fundamentalists of all stripes claiming that we're intefering with their god's will. Will we have ecoterrorism in the name of a god? this will happen for sure, haven't u seen CONTACT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) here's one that links them together, found after a 5 second search. surely there are more, don'tcha think? Your article: "Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].) Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "(Tonorator and Avernus's argument) just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." Might want to check out that "Next Page" link at the bottom of your article, where it goes through and debunks the theory presented on the first page that you so badly want to believe. Good post, man. Good post. Edited August 13, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 u may want to go read up on some history ....... who discovered the world was round? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Your article: Might want to check out that "Next Page" link at the bottom of your article, where it goes through and debunks the theory presented on the first page that you so badly want to believe. Good post, man. Good post. so what is causing Mars to warm up?... we're not there too polluting the Martian surface..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Your article: Might want to check out that "Next Page" link at the bottom of your article, where it goes through and debunks the theory presented on the first page that you so badly want to believe. Good post, man. Good post. it doesn't debunk anything. it presents an alternative opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 it doesn't debunk anything. it presents an alternative opinion. It presents the opinion supported by facts and research. That Mars' warming is caused by different factors than earth's. Read the article I posted. Read the article YOU posted. But if you're just going to argue your gut then this is going to turn into another evolution debate again where you refuse to believe anything other than what you feel in your heart is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 so what is causing Mars to warm up?... we're not there too polluting the Martian surface..... Read the article tonorator posted. Your answers lie within the elusive "Next Page" link at the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 It presents the opinion supported by facts and research. That Mars' warming is caused by different factors than earth's. Read the article I posted. Read the article YOU posted. But if you're just going to argue your gut then this is going to turn into another evolution debate again where you refuse to believe anything other than what you feel in your heart is true. what about these scientists from duke? At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report. The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases. they have to be given some merit given their great basketball program, no? hey, the bottom line here is that we don't know. our understanding of this very complex problem continues to grow over time. i tend to think we are overdoing it a bit with the man-made argument, but i don't dispute it's having an impact. i also believe there are more planetary reasons at play that we just don't understand yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.