Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Network dude.

You want to know what to do?

By the AGW book. Empty your wallet, bend over and kiss your a** goodbye.

I love how we as humans with approximately 30 years of hard (measureable and repeatable data) are trying to make a fact derived, solid decision on a body (the Earth) billions of years old.

There is no reason for alarm yet. We don't know if global warming is man made, natural, changeable...well actually we don't really know anything at all yet.

So what do we do?

We play it safe. We adjust our lifestyle and our energy consumption/production to nature neutral levels.

Does it mean we might have to sacrifice some luxuries we currently enjoy? Yes.
Does it mean we may be making sacrifices for nothing? Yes.

Does any of that matter? Not really. In my honest opinion, we can't go wrong if we live in tune with nature as opposed to against it.

Al could “become the world’s first carbon billionaire”4 from this global warming panic, even though global warming has now been proven to be built upon a foundation of false, fabricated, and pseudo-science. They continue to promote this fraud despite all the contrary evidence, namely, that some of the “authoritative science” used to support global warming was nothing more than “data” gleaned from anecdotal evidence cobbled together by a geography student and ripped from the pages of a mountain climbing magazine.

Originally posted by thecinic
Al could “become the world’s first carbon billionaire”4 from this global warming panic, even though global warming has now been proven to be built upon a foundation of false, fabricated, and pseudo-science.

And another guy posting random hogwash based on opinion blogs. How about you actually start looking at real data!! They overexagerated the glaciar melting in the himalayas...which doesn't mean the rest of the evidence suddenly isn't valid anymore. Watch the videos I posted, or stay ignorant, your choice...but given the "deny ignorance" mantra of this side I think it would be stupid of you to disregard facts in favor of opinino blogs.

Originally posted by peck420
Network dude.

You want to know what to do?

By the AGW book. Empty your wallet, bend over and kiss your a** goodbye.

I love how we as humans with approximately 30 years of hard (measureable and repeatable data) are trying to make a fact derived, solid decision on a body (the Earth) billions of years old.

There is no reason for alarm yet. We don't know if global warming is man made, natural, changeable...well actually we don't really know anything at all yet.

So what do we do?

We play it safe. We adjust our lifestyle and our energy consumption/production to nature neutral levels.

Does it mean we might have to sacrifice some luxuries we currently enjoy? Yes.
Does it mean we may be making sacrifices for nothing? Yes.

Does any of that matter? Not really. In my honest opinion, we can't go wrong if we live in tune with nature as opposed to against it.

Climate change skeptics make me angry. BUT this is an argument that I can respect.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Then when you've done that - we can start having this discussion:

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

...Instead of just constantly pissing away all our time with these pointless debates.

before I invest 2 years of my life to become a certified expert on GW, I would like you to answer my question.

which is

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

Once you and your crowd answers that, then I will put some effort into trying to ignore all my senses that tell me the earth controls the temperature and we have very little to do with it. I am not trying to be obstinate on purpose, I just hate to waste effort on pointless tasks. I could spend years proving that jumping off a 40 story building will kill you, or I could just not worry about it since I have no plans on trying it. Show me the money. Say it Jerry, SHOW ME THE MONEY.

Either we are doomed, or we can fix it. providing it's actually broke.

I concede that there would be no harm at all in developing an alternative to burning oil in order to make things move. I am all for it. I like the outdoors. I just hate being lied to.

Originally posted by monkey_descendant

Climate change skeptics make me angry. BUT this is an argument that I can respect.

Climate Change skeptics?...

You people are so hilarious... Those of us who know by now that the AGW/Global Warming religion is nothing more than a scam know very well the difference between NATURAL Climate Change, and the BS that is AGW/Global Warming...

NO ONE is denying the climate is changing...what we are denying is the false claims of AGW/Global Warming which have been proven time and again by not only science but by nature itself...

You NATURAL Climate Change deniers are hilarious...

NATURAL Climate Change Deniers = AGW/Global Warming fanatic believers...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by monkey_descendant

Climate change skeptics make me angry. BUT this is an argument that I can respect.

Climate Change skeptics?...

You people are so hilarious... Those of us who know by now that the AGW/Global Warming religion is nothing more than a scam...

...because we haven't bothered reading the dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers, and prefer getting our info from opinion logs, think this it's hogwash.

Watch the video, check the sources...stop getting your climate change "info" from Beck and other pundits.

reply to post by peck420

I agree with you. Not about buying a book to teach me all about AGW. But about trying to do a better job of taking care of our planet. I am all for it. But all we need is for the general population to care enough to try. Right now, we have a divided group bickering about who to blame for a problem that may not even exist. The idea that I am trying to get people to understand is that it doesn't matter. If we all all doomed, then fluck it. Have a beer and enjoy the sunsets as long as they last. If we as a group can attempt to live a cleaner life (not because we had to be tricked, lied to, and taxed in order to attain that goal) but because it's just the right thing to do.

If you feel you have to trick me to get me to give you a dollar, you have lost. Just ask me. I'd be happy to help out.

I bet I am not alone in that either.

reply to post by network dude

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

Nothing, in fact there is a UN BAN on Geoengineering (combating alleged Climate Change)

And some people here should think what this implies, regarding AGW ?

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by network dude

 

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

Nothing, in fact there is a UN BAN on Geoengineering (combating alleged Climate Change)

And some people here should think what this implies, regarding AGW ?

And once again people misquote stuff because they get their info spoon-fed by pundits and opinion blogs.

To clarify what the UN ban means:

There's only a moratorium on geoengineering IF it harms bio diversity...which makes total sense. Sure, we could fix all climate problems by creating some super algue that reverts the effects, and coat the entire planet with it, destroying all other animal/plants in the process. It might solve climate change, but destroy bio diversity. That's exactly what this moratorium seeks to prevent.

It does NOT prevent or forbid all geoengineering!!

So please people, instead of repeating slogans like a parrot, at least bother reading the original source...you'll look stupid and ignorant otherwise.

reply to post by MrXYZ

It does NOT prevent or forbid all geoengineering!!

No you are right, It is a ban on doing anything full blown that would directly tackle climate change and affect bio-diversity, but it does allow for some small experiments.

The 193 signatories to the convention agreed to outlaw such geoengineering projects "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts". The agreement exempted "small-scale scientific research studies".

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by network dude

I am not trying to be obstinate on purpose, I just hate to waste effort on pointless tasks.

Ok, that's fair enough. So let's start here -

I concede that there would be no harm at all in developing an alternative to burning oil in order to make things move.

The first step to eliminating oil is simply realizing how inefficient, wasteful and pointless so many of our "movements" are - and thus individually doing what it takes to minimize them, without necessarily missing a step so to speak. There are many components to this - so let me just give you a few small examples to start off:

- If you can, buy local. So many of our products and foods are shipped in from elsewhere because it's cheaper, but those transportation costs take a huge toll on our planet. And a lot of people love to complain about how everything's made in china anyway, but do they ever make the effort to seek out alternatives? No, they just mindlessly still buy the same crap.

- Try to use as little plastic as possible. Plastic, on top of being bad for the environment in numerous ways, is a derivative of petroleum. Make sure you bring your own reusable bags when shopping. If you drink bottled water, buy a filter and get a reusable bottle.

- In general just be more conscientious of how much everything around you has an energy cost. So try and develop a habit of always turning the lights off when you leave a room, only set your thermostat to a reasonable level, cold water wash if you can, drive only when you have to, etc etc...

Now I'm not saying you might not necessarily do a lot of these things already (I don't know you obviously), but the point isn't even so much the task themselves, as it is the mentality behind the tasks.

Because we all tend to go through life like mindless cattle at times, I know I do. But that's just the thing: when I start becoming more mindful of all these little details and all their broader impacts, I also start noticing the ways I'm being a total sheep by abusing them. So this becomes a big part of what I mean by "waking up".

Because when you start to be truly aware of this stuff - it becomes contagious and starts affecting bigger decisions and priorities in life. So next thing you know fuel efficiency is an absolute top priority when buying a car, or you eat less meat because you understand how much grain and land use goes into producing it. Suddenly caring about your "carbon footprint" has beneficial side effects like becoming really conscientious of all the crap that goes into our food in general.

But none of this means you have to transform into some vegan tree hugging double rainbow hippy either, it just means you care and your decisions become governed by a more conscious attitude rather than simple habit and routine.


But now you're probably still thinking - all of this can be accomplished without so much focus on global warming, and yes it can. But be realistic and look at the world around you and tell me most sheeple are going to start doing these things simply because it's good for them. Yeah right.

So this is where the fearmongering of AGW comes in. I think you should ask yourself if it's really even such a bad thing after all. Because the fearmongering simply says we NEED to change our ways and we need to do it NOW not tomorrow. You skeptic types seem to always look at this as nothing but scaring the masses into giving up their freedoms. But people like me see it as an opportunity to scare them into actually fighting for them.

Because there are in fact plenty of ways to implement global warming type reform without taxes. But again - to do that you have to get EVERYONE to care first. But they don't want to, they'd rather sit around and convince themselves it's a waste of time or a big tax grab, so then the only option to motivate them is to threaten them with taxes... And voila: the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But as for this:

I just hate being lied to.

I can tell you I have invested a lot of my time into the GW issue. And pretty much every single lie about it is coming from the deniers, not the proponents. If you don't believe me then name some skeptical talking point and I guarantee you I can debunk it.

These myths in fact have been debunked over and over again, but none of the "skeptics" seem to ever notice because for every time they get debunked - about 12 more skeptics jump into the conversation and just regurgitate them like they're fact again.

In the meantime, have a look at some of the threads around here that detail how much you're being lied to by the so-called skeptical pundits:

Climate Denial: A look at the culprits
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF
Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil
Documented reasons why Koch Industries is the most vile and counterproductive company in the US

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine


PS to end on a more positive note - bigger solutions here:




Fighting Global Warming Without Carbon Taxes

reply to post by mc_squared


thanks for being honest. I am not going to pounce on the idea I have eluded to and you confirmed, simply because you didn't BS me about it. Yes the main point of the scare tactics is trying to frighten people into being more eco conscious. While the notion isn't a bad thing, (like shooting a serial killer isn't necessarily a bad thing) it is the reason people like me are aggressively fighting this movement. I don't have enough information that I trust to believe that it's a man made problem. That being said, I agree that there is a problem. If nothing else than the constant pollution of the air we breath. So in essence we are on the same side. But if I feel as if I am being tricked into something (be it good or bad) I am going to be apprehensive. That is what you have here. We all know a good lawyer can make OJ look innocent to the right jury, so you have to be careful which information you trust. Since the end result of your movement is the same as my idea,(and probably most of the world) to clean up our act a bit, it would seem that a new leader and a new approach is needed. Al Gore has been played, and played out. I remember my kids watching Captain Planet on Saturday mornings. While that was more for the pasty vegan tree humpers, it did give a good message. And it gave good tips. But the masses have to want to change. They need hope. (sorry, had to steal Obama reference for dramatic affect) If someone was to show how going green can directly affect your take home dollar, that would grab attention like nothing else. Especially in times like these. I am not a leader. But he is out there.

One of the ways is to replace all our roads with maglevs or mono rails and place them underground. Also we need to redesign on how cities are built. Building cities of the future that has underground hydrofarms right under the city to feed the population. Build towering cities so everthing we need is there hospitals homes etc. Just how many tress can be planted in place of roads. So to get from a to b you use the rail system. However it nots going to happen and it is something that has to be done to combat our polluting vehicles, reason why it wont happen is cost. As long as people are slaves to a monetary system you cant do jack. When people realise they need to find another economic system that dosent involve money it be too late. I find peoples efforts to find a solution admirable(for not being a defeatist) but till the human voice speaks as one and not divided by peoples limited perspectives i fear we just end up having endless debates and blame games

reply to post by network dude

thanks for being honest.

Hey no prob As much as I can be an opinionated jerk on here, I am a big fan of skeptics who actually act skeptical by asking open questions, instead of playing automatic contrarian troll and throwing crap science down my throat (and then telling me how brainwashed I apparently am).

If someone was to show how going green can directly affect your take home dollar, that would grab attention like nothing else. Especially in times like these. I am not a leader. But he is out there.

Yup. The problem is the ruling elites of the status quo are deathly afraid of that messiah, so they're doing everything they can right now to drown this issue in political BS - and preemptively discredit any possible candidates, painting them all as idealistic "eco-whackos" in the process.

So I totally understand your apprehension, I really do - but just be careful someone out there isn't exploiting that apprehension either. I think the best we can all do is stick to our principles, and make the effort to lead by individual example, rather than simply wait for someone to follow.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by melatonin

 

yep, I was wrong. You do know everything.
My bad.

lol, you're pretty awesome at the non-sequitur.

We've been in this situation many a time - it's all rather tedious. You throw out some rotten nugget of denialist tripe, I show why it's BS, then you ignore and move to the next chunk immediately or in the near future and so on, and so on, and so on etc etc.

There's a saying (Einstein, perhaps?) about how madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure of the outcome of any 'discussion' we have and, unsurprisingly, my willingness to foxtrot to your tune is limited.

Cheers.

reply to post by melatonin


you are right. I just enjoy the way you do it. Predictable almost to a fault. Immidately attack the scientist in question, attack his crediblility, regurgitate the same links to your people, and then scamper off happily while looking down on the stupid people who just don't get it. I do agree that the process is as Einstein described. I just keep hoping one day you will be able to tilt your head down and see why people are disagreeing with you. Is it because you don't have good linkys? no, perhaps it's the delivery.

Toodles!

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by melatonin

 

you are right. I just enjoy the way you do it. Predictable almost to a fault. Immidately attack the scientist in question, attack his crediblility, regurgitate the same links to your people, and then scamper off happily while looking down on the stupid people who just don't get it. I do agree that the process is as Einstein described. I just keep hoping one day you will be able to tilt your head down and see why people are disagreeing with you. Is it because you don't have good linkys? no, perhaps it's the delivery.

Toodles!

lol, OK. Lets analyse what happened for you. You post an article by David Deming, I show that he's quite the crank using data from Roy Spencer and the UAH dudes.

Apparently Roy Spencer is one 'my people'?

I noted that Deming is associated with right-wing think-tanks and has a history of pushing an oil-friendly positions. All facts which clearly explain why he holds to crank-like positions which are easily shown to be wrong.

I have an idea why some people disagree with me. It tends to be due to their ideology. I'm sure that whilst Deming is a grade A A-hole, he's probably not an idiot - just a sophist.

And as I see Smurfy below which reminded me, others post interesting enough questions and points which attract my attention and get the sort of response they deserve (although sad to see the zombie lag fallacy get another parade). Others, like yourself, post little more than the same old tripe which is tedious beyond belief and deserves little more than disdain and mockery.

And nice bit of tone-trolling at the end - suppose it's easier the blame me for the fact you tend to post specious BS and are a bit like super-nova of fallacious reasoning. It wouldn't matter whether I wrap my arguments up in a purdy little box with bows - you can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into

It somewhat appears that you think it's my job to persuade you - sorry, dude, I couldn't care less about your inability to see through the smoke and mirrors and you're just not that important to me - perhaps if it affected my take home dollar I might bother, lol. Indeed, as you note people need to want to change or, more pertinently here, need to not have bulletproof predetermined ideologically-informed conclusions and the capability to reason clearly.

And, finally, it will all be clear as day in time, you don't need my help.

Cheers

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Lib,
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relatively new area of research, from around 2003 I think. Previous to that the research ended at the shallow sea. That has to be taken into account as the research results are not longtime observations, but new findings from 2003 to 2008. They were done at a time when the seasonal sea ice melt was on the increase, although this last few years that volume of melt has decreased. In fact the study was very low key and the researchers felt that a much bigger experiment is/was needed. They made no predictions based on their results. I will look for the pdf file.

Hi Smurfy. If that were the case, I would not be overly concerned. However:

The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

Venting significantly increased in the last year (2009.…that was the most recent expedition to the area to take samples of atmospheric methane concentrations). The predicted abrupt release of 50GT from the ESAS has not yet occurred, but the significant increase in venting could be a warning sign that it is imminent.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

...we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

www.guardian.co.uk...

iopscience.iop.org...

www.youtube.com...

edit on 4-11-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason given)

You are telling me what I already know about the east siberian shelf, (the report is already out early this year btw) Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov would not have found anything in the east siberian shelf in the 1990's because they only started studying the shelf, which is a [shallow sea], (submerged land) in 2003-2008. Before that any studies ended at the coastline! Now in the last three years the seasonal melt, (measured in volume of water) has declined, with the melt sharply tailing off in September, in other words it is refreezing much faster than it had been previous and therefore the frozen period is becoming longer again, so that is a little good news, and I am just the messenger. The main point of my "thrust" therefore, is that no-one knows how long methane has been escaping from the east siberian shelf prior to 2003, and that the original fractures could well have been due to a major earthquake in that region and that all the methane that has escaped from there could have been converted to CO2 and added to the atmosphere in an immeasurable way, immeasurable, since no-one knew about it. Escaping methane is not a rare event either, and is theorised as means of sinking ships. Also there are other theories as to exactly how methane does escape even in deep water, geothermal heat is a "hot" one. So I'm afraid it is the science that is not cut and dried by a long chalk. It is a known phenomenon that CO2 concentration rises AFTER a ground temperature rise, it always lags behind, so a sudden increase of methane, caused by natural events like earthquakes or geothermal heat, is much more likely the culprit than AGW. Much more info needed, you probably know that yourself.

Originally posted by network dude

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

you can't keep poking everyone and yelling about the sky falling and then not offer any umbrella. You plight is so pointless, it defies logic. Start your next thread with this title "What we can do to prevent the end of the world" or you could start your next thread like "I like UFO's" which would probably be a wiser choice.
Telling the guy who is stuck inside a well for 10 days he is gona die is just stupid. True or not, stupid. Will we all die? Yep no question, the only question is how and when.

Tell me the time frame we have. 5 years, 10 years, 30 years? how many? You don't know any more that I do.

There is nothing we can do. I suppose I'm like a cancer doctor telling a patient that they have 6 months to live. Sure I could lie and say, "well you have stage 4 pancreatic cancer but there are lots of holistic remedies like shots of wheat grass that may allow you to live a few decades", but we all know that's not the case.

i realize what I'm saying is not easy to swallow, but facts are facts I'm afraid.

You ask for a time frame? My best guess is 5 years. Here is why (you must read the following carefully to comprehend its significance)

The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

Venting significantly increased in the last year (2009.…that was the most recent expedition to the area to take samples of atmospheric methane concentrations). The predicted abrupt release of 50GT from the ESAS has not yet occurred, but the significant increase in venting could be a warning sign that it is imminent.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

...we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

www.guardian.co.uk...

iopscience.iop.org...

www.youtube.com...