March for science 2017

Discussion in 'Science' started by SuperSymmetry, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So called 'science deniers' are any scientist that produces inconvenient science not politically approved by the new AGW religion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017
  2. SuperSymmetry

    SuperSymmetry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Jesus Christ.
     
  3. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What is his reasoning exactly?

    Because it's not just scientists that recognize that threat global warming poses, but even the US's own military - including Mattis.

    ???

    Obama was not a creationist. What are you on about?

    No, you see, Obama never pushed for religious education, religion played a very small role in his policies, and the policies of the Democrats in general.

    In contrast, the GOP are far, far more religious, and given that DeVos is the secretary of education, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of her ability to separate her creationist beliefs from the secular US education system.

    Creationism =/= critical thinking

    The only reason creationism should ever come up in a biology class room is for it to immediately be debunked by evolution.

    Did that have anything to do with his religious beliefs? At most you're drawing a correlation here, but under the assumption that it is causation, then we should see scores fall even further with DeVos at the helm.

    Holy ****, creationism and theism are equally (in)valid in your mind?

    If you disagree with him on scientific grounds, then what exactly is the issue with this?

    1. His position on who will pay for the wall and how is pretty sketchy.
    2. His foreign policy towards Russia and Syria are hardly in line with campaign promises
    3. His ban on immigration from high threat countries excluded several hotspots

    You are aware it is far, far more irrational to believe in creationism than to simply believe in God, right?

    >quote from one person

    you're going to need a lot more backing to assert that AGW is "muh librul conspiracy"

    I'll go into the article you linked when I'm not on the verge of passing out.

    "Hey guys, this engine won't run"

    "Well sheeeet, why?

    "There's no gasoline"

    "Well don't put any in it, that should fix the problem"

    Do you realize how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy this is?

    Settled on what? Global warming? Because the evidence suggests that it exists.

    One can hope...

    I'm not entirely sure you understand what the scientific method is, so I'll explain it to you:

    Science that largely flies in the face of what is currently understood about the universe is not inconvenient, certainly not from a political standpoint, but anyone who believes in a handful of studies that have been heavily refuted by other studies is essentially denying science.
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, Al Goracle.
     
  5. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    He thinks catastrophic AGW is a hoax. I agree. All the angst about warming is based on feedbacks from a 1°C increase after CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere double from what they were when the Industrial Revolution began.

    So far, climate change has been benign or even positive (we've had the lowest number of major landfalling hurricanes in the US in our history, for example).

    AGW is an engineering problem. If sea levels get too high, we'll build dikes and seawalls. If that's not enough we'll build a solar shield in space to block excess heat from the sun. We've got this, so there's no need to panic.

    People who are experts in one field are not necessarily expert in others.

    Sheesh, I'm an atheist, yet even I know that what I said applies to any Christian.

    No, it's not perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. Where are the quotes from her that would justify your prejudiced opinion?

    Of course. And what evidence do you have that DeVos will change what happens in biology classes?

    I'm pointing out that the Left didn't gather to protest falling education scores when the evidence was right in front of them. But now the Left is concerned about the quality of education because of imagined threats from the Trump administration. It's all political theater and the public realizes it.

    It feels so weird that I know more about religion than you do. Obama's church preaches incredible nonsense that people accept because it's familiar. And please provide evidence that Obama's a "theist", because he's claimed to be a Christian.

    I see that he's increasing funding for Nasa, for example, which is pro-science. So what tool do you use to determine that he's anti-science? Other than politics.

    Obama broke more than 100 promises in 8 years, I think Trump supporters will cut him some slack since he's only been in office 4 months.

    No. Don't be silly. People who believe in god swallow an incredible amount of crap.

    A quote from a government official who simply let slip what's really going on when governments grab more tax money to "alleviate" climate change. Social justice engineering is what it is.

    Yes. Cute story. Shame it didn't apply to what I'm talking about.

    The EPA is a failure. People have been harmed by it. So we should cut it back to the bare bones and strip off the distractions that make it incapable of fulfilling its main functions. Once it's been renovated, Trump will rebuild the EPA into something useful.
     
  6. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This is pretty much the entire basis for AGW denile: Not understanding the proper scale to view the situation from.

    This is a graph showing a change in global temperature since 1800 (the scale you are viewing the situation from):
    [​IMG]

    This is the change in global temperature over the course of roughly two decades. Notice how there is very little change overall.
    [​IMG]

    This is global temperature change over 1700 years, the largest chunk of time so far. There is a slightly more noticeable uptick in this one, but nothing substantial.
    [​IMG]
    Here's 10000 years. Everything good so far, in fact things are actually a bit cooler:
    [​IMG]

    I can't find a super clean graph for this, so you'll have to take my word on it: Over the course of 100 million years, Earth's history in general really, we're actually in a pretty cool period.

    But here's the kicker, none of these look at temperature changes at the proper scale. This is what graph everyone should be looking at:
    [​IMG]

    If we look to the far right of the graph, we can see that in terms of 1 million yeras, we are in a warm period in Earth's history. Based on historical data, we should be seeing a sharp decline in global temperature right now. However, if we look at the far right of the graph, we can see that Earth's temperature is actually hovering at a warm period when it should be cooling. This trend started right around 10,000 years ago and coincides with the agricultural revolution.

    Many people seem to think that industrialization is the primary reason behind global warming, and while it did certainly play a role, really it was the foundation of human civilization and the cultivation of crops that has kept us in this warm period.

    That's an incredibly western centric view of the situation. Meanwhile, we are seeing foodshortages in Africa, the drying up of rivers (especially the case with the Colorado), even the current revolution in Syria can be linked to global warming in part.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    no.

    A "solar shield" would effectively be the largest construction project the world has ever seen. Taking into account the amount of resources needed, the amount of capital needed, and the amount of labor needed, constructing this would be essentially impossible. By the time all of the resources necessary would have been gathered, it would be too late.

    Quite simply: this is impractical. Highly impractical.

    No, but they are listening to experts by the look of it.

    http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...es-disavow-teaching-intelligent-design-public

    Of course, there has been a growing trend towards centralizing education in the US, so I question how much control local governments will have on this matter.

    False.
    Here's just one example of people protesting education cuts, much like they are trying to do now:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/03/education.protest/

    Because the Trump administration not only threatens to cut school funding, but now also introduce falsehoods in the American curriculum.

    Was any of that nonsense creationism though? Has Obama ever expressed sympathies towards creationism? Did his administration ever push for creationism to be taught in any capacity?

    Um....

    You know those aren't mutually exclusive, right?

    Who will then produce research that he will immediately dismiss.

    I highly doubt that the increase in funding will go towards projects that would prove him wrong. I highly doubt Trump is a flat earther, so space exploration probably isn't that much of an issue for him.

    Both the NIP and EPA face funding cuts.

    I mean, so far Obama's had more time to break promises. What reason do you have to believe that Trump won't break an equal or greater amount of promises over 4 years? 8 years?

    Yeah, but creationism isn't necessarily one of them, now is it?

    A single government official. I'm going to want more substantial evidence.

    How has it failed, and why isn't that linked to a lack of funds?

    Those distractions being?

    Or cripple it until a new Democrat administration has to clean up the mess.
     
  7. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    <snipped for brevity>

    "denile"? So it is a river in Egypt.

    Pardon me, but it seems you used my post as an excuse to shoehorn in some irrelevant (in terms of what I posted) boilerplate stuff.

    When CO2's concentration is twice what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, just the increase in CO2 will bump temps a torrid 1°C.

    Think about that.

    So all the weeping and gnashing of teeth is in fear of the feedbacks from a 1°C increase.

    Excuse my yawn.

    There are always food shortages in Africa, so don't blame AGW. As for the Colorado river, as is usual with examples cited by alarmists, the reason it's drying up isn't because of AGW: "intensive water consumption has dried up the lower 100 miles (160 km) of the river, which has rarely reached the sea since the 1960s."

    I find your ignorance amusing. A space sunshade is within reach of our current tech, so when we need it, we'll have it:

    One proposed such sunshade for use towards that effect would be composed of 16 trillion small disks at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point, 1.5 million kilometers above Earth. Each disk is proposed to have a 0.6-meter diameter and a thickness of about 5 micrometers. The mass of each disk would be about a gram, adding up to a total of almost 20 million tonnes.[2] Such a group of small sunshades that blocks 2% of the sunlight, deflecting it off into space, would be enough to halt global warming, giving us ample time to cut our emissions back on earth.​

    Sorry to ruin your day by proving that the sky is not falling.

    The experts have a pitiful track record so far.

    I found that quote disturbing. Why would you cite what Dick DeVos says about anything when it's Betsy's opinions we're discussing? Please explain the apparent sexism.

    Local protests of budget cuts? Do you understand that we're discussing protests regarding the quality of education? Therefore, Leftists choosing now to protest imagined changes in science education ring hypocritical after they failed to protest falling national test scores.

    Since you've failed to produce a single example of said falsehoods, I call bullshit.

    You seem to have difficulty with the concept that all religious dogma is ridiculous.There is no super being controlling your life, nor was the universe created in seven days, nor are there spirits living in trees, etc. etc.


    Actually, I've run across people who have a bias against Christians, so they'll claim a famous person (Thomas Jefferson, for instance) wasn't Christian but instead was a theist.

    People are often foolish, so I like to set the record straight early on.

    Doubt all you want, but you don't have the gravitas for your opinion to matter much. I've tried to find out why you people are protesting Trump's anti-science administration, but what I've learned is that you're just political hacks who don't have the truth on your side, just an axe to grind.

    National Institute of Physics? I thought that was in the Philippines.

    As has been stated already, I'm in favor of cutting the EPA as part of restructuring it so it can do its job properly.


    Given that Obama presided over the destruction of the Democratic party as a national force, it's reasonable to speculate that much of the reason why Dems have been so badly beaten is because Obama failed to keep his promises. Many people have learned from his mistake (almost all of them Republicans).

    Are you kidding?! I thought you disagreed with creationism. You don't really believe in that nonsense do you?

    You won't accept any evidence. What I said makes sense. Regardless, I'm all for gutting AGW science and putting the money to where it can be used properly. Like preparing for building a space sunshade/solar power system.

    I've already mentioned the Flint, Michigan and Animas River disasters. Those were EPA failures.

    Wasting time and money on climate change while letting rivers get poisoned. Working to end the use of coal.

    A Democrat was in charge of the EPA when it committed some of its worst failures.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  8. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    [​IMG]

    Your point was that because CO2 emissions have only caused a slight increase in global temperature over the course of 200 years, that humans have no involvement in global warming.

    This is false given the data showing the flat lining of temperature around the start of early civilization. So, while we are seeing a slight increase in temperature, the fact that the Earth is not cooling when previous records show that it should is what we should be worried about.

    Saying that humans have no role in what we're seeing right now is quite simply wrong.

    Do you have any reason to believe that the number of food shortages have remained constant over time. Because what you're basically saying is that guns have played no role in murder rates because murder has existed before guns.

    There are multiple causes. Pinning it one just global warming or just water consumption is simply false:
    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/24/colorado-river-global-warming/

    Wikipedia says nothing about this being possible in the near future, in fact:
    While I don't doubt we have the _knowledge_ of how to create such a structure, creating it and implementing it would be remarkably difficult.

    You are suggesting that we would somehow be able to move 20 million tons 1.5 million km into space with ease. The cost to go to the moon in 1969 was 25 billion dollars (not factoring in inflation), and that was only around 3000 tons. And the distance between the moon and earth is far shorter than the distance between the earth and the sunshade you're suggesting. It simply isn't practical, nor is it an end all solution.

    Lolwut?

    So, what evidence do you have that would suggest that the experts are wrong? And don't repeat yourself about CO2 emissions since the 1800s, I've already refuted that.

    Given the religiousity of them both and their previous donations to religious groups advocating creationism, it seems to me like it's a safe assumption that Betsy DeVos's views on this matter would be incredibly similar to her husband's.

    You're an idiot if you don't think that funding does not have a direct correlation with the quality of education.

    Protesting budget cuts would imply that they are worried such budget cuts would have a negative impact on test scores. Teaching false information would also have a negative impact on test scores.

    Therefore: Being worried about budget cuts and what is being taught are closely related enough to be considered protesting the damaging effects public policy is having on test scores.

    Yeah, but saying that all religious dogma is equally ridiculous is also false.

    So you're saying a person as arrogant as Trump would actively support people telling him he's wrong?

    If so, then you certainly did not come in good faith:
    You see, this statement means nothing since you came here to argue rather than to learn (not inherently a bad thing).

    National Institute of Health, no clue why I typed NIP.

    Saying this is like saying Bush destroyed the Republican party. Any damage done is largely short term unless there is a prolonged shift left spearheaded by Sanders.

    I would argue it had more to do with the perception that his policies simply did not work. And then there's the adamant opposition coming from the Republican party during his time in office that effectively prevented him from implementing several measures - similar to what we are seeing now with the Democrats and Trump.

    No. What I meant to say was, creationism is certainly a more irrational belief than many other ideas stemming from religion.

    Translation: I have no other evidence to support my claim

    No it doesn't. At all.

    Translation: I'm being beaten into the ground, but I refuse to admit I'm wrong

    You're an even bigger idiot if you think that a sunshade wouldn't require the mobilization of the entire world's economy towards producing it.

    Perhaps these could have been avoided if the GOP didn't block Obama increasing funding:
    [​IMG]

    Climate change poses a much larger threat than a single river being damaged.

    Nuclear energy > coal

    I see no reason to believe that Flint and Animas were directly caused by the head of the EPA.
     
  9. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Remarkable. I was just searching for that graphic after I read your response.

    How did you possibly reach your conclusion based on what I wrote?

    Let me break it down for you in easier to swallow chunks:

    1. At some point down the road (probably around 2100), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be double what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
    2. By the time #1 occurs, the resulting increase in temperatures that's possible from the doubling of CO2 alone will be 1°C.
    3. Any additional warming that occurs will be caused by feedbacks from the 1°C of warming caused by #1.

    As you should be able to see, my point was not "that because CO2 emissions have only caused a slight increase in global temperature over the course of 200 years, that humans have no involvement in global warming".

    My point is that a 1°C increase is tiny. Resulting feedbacks won't be dire.

    Since you're so mixed up on this, I'm going to hold off fisking the rest of your post until we get this straightened out, m'kay?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017
  10. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yeah, and who's to say that the 1°C increase won't have huge effects on the environment? We're already supposed to be in a cooling period; prolonged heating of the Earth, even if maintained at a constant temperature, is certainly not good for life right now. An increase in temperature, even by 1°C would be very dangerous.

    Let's look at the graph again:
    [​IMG]

    Heating by 1°C over the course of 100 years is incredibly fast, even for periods coming out of an ice age. And if such increases remain constant, the Earth will pretty much become uninhabitable within a few hundred years (assuming nuclear war doesn't kill us all first).

    It's massive once you see how quick this is actually happening. We see a fluctuation of roughly 12°C over the course of Earth's history for the last 800,000 years. Usually, when leaving an Ice Age, the Earth may take 1000 years to see a 1°C increase in temperature. We're expecting to see it in just 100 years, so the Earth is heating up at 10x the normal rate at a point in time when it should in fact be cooling.

    So while a 1°C increase may sound tiny, it is actually remarkably big when looked at in the proper context.

    Fair enough, given how the rest of your arguments are heavily based on this.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017
  11. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    We've already experienced 0.8°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution, and there's been a drastic drop in the number of landfalling hurricanes hitting the US. So far, so good.

    As for us going into a cooling period, more lives are lost from cold weather than hot, so we should look at the untimely warming as saving lives.
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every science agency on the planet disagrees with you
     
  13. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I love the smell of an argument from authority in the morning.
     
  14. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love the guy who thinks he figured out something no one else has. LOL
     
  15. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm uncomfortable with your adulation. Kindly keep it private.
     
  16. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean your delusion of grandeur. LOL
     
  17. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    And again, that's an incredibly US centric point of view. Droughts, not just in the US, but around the world are increasing. We're seeing water levels rise to the point some major cities could start having major flooding issues within the next century.

    Global warming is already sparking unrest in the Middle East and Africa, and may soon come to Central and South America, causing major demographic shifts.

    Tensions between Pakistan and India are already high, throwing global warming based issues into the mix only makes things worse - much worse. We're expected to see war between third world countries in the coming decades, and thinking that Pakistan and India would be excluded from this is stupid. And no one wants a war between two nuclear powers.

    Again, false. We are currently in a new extinction period driven by human actions and global warming.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    And assuming that this as well won't eventually harm humans is wishful ignorance.
     
  18. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm just using the US as an example. Climate change has had beneficial effects and negative ones.

    Climate change has done that before (see Genghis Khan), but strangely, humans didn't cause that climate change.

    And when you mention something sparking unrest in the ME and Africa, I hope you're being ironic.

    Climate changes on its own, as the Genghis Khan example proves, humans have to deal with what comes. If India and Pakistan go at it with nukes, there's nothing the rest of the world could do to stop it.

    Ah yes. The Greenie's answer to the so-called Holocene extinction is the eradication of human beings, isn't it? That's always the sub-text of complaints about our stewardship of the planet. Get rid of humans and Gaia will smile.

    His empire lasted a century and a half and eventually covered nearly a quarter of the earth's surface. His murderous Mongol armies were responsible for the massacre of as many as 40 million people. Even today, his name remains a byword for brutality and terror. But boy, was Genghis green.

    Genghis Khan, in fact, may have been not just the greatest warrior but the greatest eco-warrior of all time, according to a study by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Energy. It has concluded that the 13th-century Mongol leader's bloody advance, laying waste to vast swaths of territory and wiping out entire civilisations en route, may have scrubbed 700m tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere – roughly the quantity of carbon dioxide generated in a year through global petrol consumption – by allowing previously populated and cultivated land to return to carbon-absorbing forest.
    In a hundred years, people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Ever heard of the Great Horse Manure Crisis? The world's cities were being smothered by horse manure at the turn of the 20th century:

    By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.

    In 1900, there were over 11,000 hansom cabs on the streets of London alone. There were also several thousand horse-drawn buses, each needing 12 horses per day, making a staggering total of over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city each day.

    To add to this, there were yet more horse-drawn carts and drays delivering goods around what was then the largest city in the world.

    This huge number of horses created major problems. The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem. The manure on London’s streets also attracted huge numbers of flies which then spread typhoid fever and other diseases.

    Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day and to make things worse, the average life expectancy for a working horse was only around 3 years. Horse carcasses therefore also had to be removed from the streets. The bodies were often left to putrefy so the corpses could be more easily sawn into pieces for removal.

    The streets of London were beginning to poison its people.

    But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.

    This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

    This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.

    The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.
    The solution, of course, was the automobile.

     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2017
  19. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Negative. Mostly negative. The negatives out weigh the positives. By a lot.

    We've also seen somewhat of an upward trend in hurricanes, so...
    [​IMG]

    Um what? Okay, go back to the graphs I first posted in response to what you said. Humans have been causing climate change since the agricultural revolution.

    I'm not.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/global-warming-worsened-syria-drought-study

    And by all means we should prevent it from coming.

    However, we should be working to prevent such a catastrophy. Including mitigating climate change to the best of our ability (we're ****ed anyway, but we can at least try to fight).

    Go back. Read what I said. At what point did I call for human extinction?

    Based

    as

    ****

    Do I have any reason to believe that humans will somehow create a new technology that will easily reverse or mitigate the effects of global warming? Because this really isn't a valid comparison otherwise.

    Like, unless we have major technological breakthroughs in the energy industry, then we may be able to mitigate the damage already done.
     
  20. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. Because from what I read, most of the "negative" results turn out to have other causes than climate change.

    Negatory, good buddy:

    Hurricanes, large and small, have eluded U.S. shores for record lengths of time. As population and wealth along parts of the U.S. coast have exploded since the last stormy period, experts dread the potential damage and harm once the drought ends.

    Three historically unprecedented droughts in landfalling U.S. hurricanes are presently active.

    A major hurricane hasn’t hit the U.S. Gulf or East Coast in more than a decade. A major hurricane is one containing maximum sustained winds of at least 111 mph and classified as Category 3 or higher on the 1-5 Saffir-Simpson wind scale. (Hurricane Sandy had transitioned to a post tropical storm when it struck New Jersey in 2012, and was no longer classified as a hurricane at landfall, though it had winds equivalent to a Category 1 storm.) The streak has reached 3,937 days, longer than any previous drought by nearly two years.

    If you mean on a small, local scale, I don't disagree. If you mean global effects (which is all that matters), the Earth's exit from the previous ice age has much more impact.



    Somebody clipping his toenails in public worsens problems in those regions! They've been powder kegs for centuries, so attributing their latest issues in any but a minuscule way to climate change is ridiculous.

    Not by altering economies and forcing people to make lifestyle changes. The social justice warriors will use any excuse to coerce humans to change how they live so as to not cause so much hurt to Gaia.

    I'm talking about the Green extremists who see human beings, not climate change as the problem.


    Ah, so when you quote The Guardian, as you did above, it's hunky-dory, but when I do it, it's biased reporting. Typical.


    We could already start building the space sunshade today if we really believed it was needed. And given the $44 trillion dollars that's been estimated it will cost to fail at fighting AGW, the $5 trillion a sunshade would cost is a pittance

    Do you pay any attention to the leaps and bounds being made in discoveries in nanotechnology? We're at the stage in development that transistors were at in the 1960s. Look at what occurred since. Nanotech promises reductions in power use that are several orders of magnitude lower than we consume today. Does that improve your mood?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  21. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Such as?

    1. Hardly a good article, because it still argues that it's a bad thing. But thanks for conceding on it anyway ;)
    2. As the oceans warm due to global warming, we're expected to see stronger hurricanes. From what the source you provided shows, we're really only coping with a problem due to another problem.

    *sigh* No. Again, looking at the graph, we should have hit a peak temperature be in a period of decline by now. However, we are warming and at a faster pace than we've seen in the last several hundred thousand years.
    [​IMG]

    Did you read the article at all? It shows pretty well that droughts caused by global warming started a domino effect that made that powder keg go boom.

    And this is only the first of many, as again, we are expected to see wars over water in the coming decades:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/

    "I would rather have the extinction of the entire human race, while turning the Earth into Mars 2.0 than, dear god, change the way I live."

    Those aren't exactly mutually exclusive...

    Like, humans have played a major role in global warming.

    What?

    M8, do you not know what "based" means. Holy ****.

    But anyway, it was a sarcastic response to your point.

    Drop the space sunshade already:
    Lol, we're talking way more than $5 trillion dollars. We're talking the mobilization of the global economy towards one construction project.

    Not really no. This is just wishful thinking.

    And although new technologies may reduce our CO2 emmisions, will it repair environmental damage, or cool the earth? Because both of those problems would still exist.
     
  22. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know what you're going to accomplish.................................squat, but you'll feel like a SJW.
     
  23. SuperSymmetry

    SuperSymmetry Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Female
    Since when does protesting something make someone a SJW?

    Also I thought the whole point of calling people SJWs was to say that they don't engage in activism.
     
  24. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    okay, so after researching into this a bit more, the $5 trillion estimation is even more bullshit than I thought.

    From the first sentence we see that this is really just a vague estimation, and unless it becomes fully automated (at which point you will have a _major_ issue with unemployment. acting like this won't have a major effect on the global economy is just stupid, and more than likely it will be negative). It seems to rely heavily on the assumption that "everything will go according to plan".

    It's far from a valid alternative, and this is even stated in the wikipedia article you mentioned:
    "Thus leading Professor Angel to conclude that "[t]he sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution."

    So basically, not a solution. Try again.
     
  25. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Claims about rising sea levels that turn out to be caused by subsidence. Mount Kilimanjaro's disappearing glaciers are caused by deforestation, not climate change. Frogs disappearing isn't caused by climate change, they just got infected with a nasty fungus that humans helped spread by travel. When some alarmist brings up a climate change claim, there's usually something else involved that is actually causing the problem. But "climate change" gets the headlines.

    Ahhh. Of course they say a hurricane drought is a bad thing--anytime some fact contradicts the catastrophic AGW narrative, there will be a reason, no matter how much of a stretch it is, why it reinforces how bad AGW is. Alarmists would have been right at home in Winston Smith's Oceania.

    Why would you complain about temps being warmer rather than colder? Cold weather causes many more fatalities than warm.

    Yet another example of climate change being shoehorned into any story. The fact is that Syria's civil war was caused by:

    The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Assad government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal were violently suppressed.​

    Annnnnd the authoritarian side of the Green movement peeks out from behind the veil! You guys want to guilt-trip people into changing their lifestyles over something that doesn't live up to the caterwauling. Given the power, you'd FORCE them to change.

    AGW is not a catastrophe.

    Yup, you're on a roll now. If humanity would just have the decency to drop dead, the planet would be better off.

    I'm much more optimistic. As humanity becomes wealthier and the Third World approaches First World status, the expectation is that populations will fall voluntarily, and concern for the environment will rise. By the end of the century, I predict most industrial processes will take place in orbit or on the Moon. The Earth will be on its way to becoming one big nature preserve.

    Really? Because your comments so far indicate that what Earth needs now are more eco-warriors like Genghis.

    It could cost $10 trillion, yet when we were done, we'd have global warming stopped. There's nothing magical about the sunshade, it's a practical solution whose adoption is just a matter of deciding whether climate change is a real threat or not.

    And the way we know it's not a real threat is when we see governments planning on shelling out $44 trillion bucks in a failed attempt to keep temps from rising. That money won't be used for anything but social justice engineering.

    The sunshade will cool the earth. What environmental damage do you mean?
     

Share This Page