Deny No More

reply to post by Kali74


Does climate change really matter?? if we evolved into what we are now I am pretty sure we will evolve into something to be able to cope with climate change. And if we don't then why do we stand in the way evolutionary progress..

we started out as a stew then were able to breathe in water, then breathe in air. we can possibly evolve to breathe something other than oxygen... and adapt to different types of climate conditions. .

Get over climate change. it has happened in the past without industry or politics

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

Mother Nature will do just fine, as will the Earth, life, etc. once we have finished our short little stint here and turned to dust.

It's likely Earth will recover from humanity in a few million years but not assured since we will likely take millions of species of plants and animals with us. The other factor is we are changing the chemistry of the oceans, freshwater, and depleting the soil of vital nutrients.

But go ahead...support the flavor of the day liberal agenda that spends and takes more money from the public for either a made-up problem

The posts of my OP show that the 'liberal agenda' doesn't exist in US laws, budgets and policies, if you disagree with the facts I've presented why not discuss them?

or a problem that can not be solved.

Sure it can be solved, it just takes hard work, responsibility and innovation.

reply to post by votan

Does climate change really matter?? if we evolved into what we are now I am pretty sure we will evolve into something to be able to cope with climate change. And if we don't then why do we stand in the way evolutionary progress..

Of course climate change matters. It took billions of years to evolve into what we are now. Climate change in the past, barring cataclysm such as massive volcanic eruptions and the like, took place over thousands or millions of years, it was very slow, giving life the time required to adapt and evolve. Cataclysms in the past that caused rapid and dramatic global temperature changes triggered mass extinction events.

The current temperature increase Earth is experiencing now is happening much too fast for the physiology of plants and animals, with the possible exception of viruses, bacteria and insects which adapt and mutate much faster, to adapt to.

Get over climate change.

Why do you want anyone to get over it? What bothers you so much about people discussing the various aspects of global warming?

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


No other animal in nature has built such destructive tools to destroy the environment and possess the knowledge to stupidly permanently alter the chemistry of the world with unnatural chemicals. A volcano blowing off emits natural things, stuff that live has coexisted with for millions if not billions of years. Burning wood, coal, natural gas, and coal moderately does not hurt the earth, it is natural.


but doing it to excess and altering the chemistry of these can be destructive. Concentrating even natural chemicals in certain places can destroy the environment in that area. Look at the unnatural chemistry we are creating. I don't understand how people can say that we cannot destroy the ability of the world to permanently sustain life. Why is it necessary for mankind to be destroyed as you say, why can't we survive another million years in harmony with the earth. Why does the fact that we can destroy our biodome mean that we must, why can't we be a part of nature instead of dominating and destroying it. We can steer nature, we do not have the right to destroy it.

Believing we cannot destroy the biodome is foolish, if we dumped all our chemicals in the sea that we are creating worldwide it would destroy the sea. Once that doesn't sustain life, than everything collapses. The dump liners have to be guaranteed for twenty years according to law, what is twenty years? does anything we have created lately last much longer than the warrantee? If the dumps contained natural chemistry it would not be a problem.

reply to post by Kali74


Insightfull and very well put together, bookmarking this for a proper read later.

Good things

reply to post by Kali74


Great thread Kali74 & a big F&S for the OP! You are absolutely right when you say "Deny No More."

On the other hand, there will always be those who will eagerly deny all scientific fact, especially if those facts clash with their ideology and/or interfere with their ability to make unprecedented profits. This is especially true when it comes to energy because energy is the primary tool used to enslave humanity.

The energy cartels will continue to oppose any and all efforts to abandon fossil fuels, at least until such time as they have attained controlling interest in the green energy companies. The key words being "controlling interest" because that's all they're really concerned with. You'll see, once they have attained controlling interest in these companies they'll do a 180 with respect to green energy subsidies.

I've read numerous studies where it is revealed that upwards of 80% of all the work we do, is to pay for the energy required to run our homes, cars and to produce the goods we consume. Based on these studies, energy is the key to controlling the masses and unfortunately, I wouldn't expect the climate change deniers to have a change of heart any time soon.

Until such time as we break the strangle hold of these energy cartels and unveil the secrecy surrounding new energy technologies like "over unity" and/or free energy devices, I'm afraid that we will continue to find ourselves under the thumbs of those who control our sources of energy. Based on their past performance of utilizing energy to control others, one can only hope that those who currently control the fossil fuel industries have no role in our future green energy supplies.

reply to post by Flatfish

The energy cartels will continue to oppose any and all efforts to abandon fossil fuels, at least until such time as they have attained controlling interest in the green energy companies. The key words being "controlling interest" because that's all they're really concerned with. You'll see, once they have attained controlling interest in these companies they'll do a 180 with respect to green energy subsidies.

I have no doubt that oil companies have a renewable contingency plan for when oil is no longer profitable, my guess is that when that time comes laws will be put into effect that make it illegal for homeowners to own solar panels or any other renewable energy generator, we will have to rent such from utility companies... which I don't necessarily have too much of a problem with, it's okay for corporations to profit but it's not okay to go about it the way the oil, electricity, coal and gas cartels go about it. And yes they will do an about face on renewable subsidies as well.

QUOTE: Of course climate change matters. It took billions of years to evolve into what we are now. Climate change in the past, barring cataclysm such as massive volcanic eruptions and the like, took place over thousands or millions of years, it was very slow, giving life the time required to adapt and evolve. Cataclysms in the past that caused rapid and dramatic global temperature changes triggered mass extinction events.

The current temperature increase Earth is experiencing now is happening much too fast for the physiology of plants and animals, with the possible exception of viruses, bacteria and insects which adapt and mutate much faster, to adapt to.



Did it? would you care to provide us with the proof sourced via proven and recorded research?
Its taken decades for scientits to try and establish the age of the Turin shroud through carbon dating and, even now, they cannot all agree yet, according to you, Scientists can prove that there has never been any kind of rapid climate change like there is now.
I find that remarkable, bravo to the scientists that have proved that 827, 632 years ago there wasnt any cataclysmic change in the climate. Brilliant, eh?
Tell me how they charted the Earths climate over billions of years.
This Planet is in an ever changing universe. 100 years ago they used to hold markets ON the River Thames because it used to freeze over and recent Logs have come to light charting the weird and wonderful weather experienced by Ships Captains going back the the 16th century.
Noting that extreme weather patterns are synonymous with "Global warming" I assume, by what we are being fed, Global warming has been going on for hundreds of years NOT just in the last 100!
People also seem to forget that "Green" energy and the whole industry that has sprung up from it has generated billions of pounds world wide creating jobs where there were none and rich people who jumped onto that particular bandwagon. It could be argued, by the cynic, that the people who stand to gain most from the whole global warming issue are big industries and corporations who have invested billions in off shore wind turbines and solar panels etc. In effect, the very "Fat cats" that are accused of ignoring global warming are, in fact, heavily involved in perpetuating the whole debate to sell the idea that the human race is 99% responsible. Hey, if only we were to, as an example, own an electric car and eat less baked beans to stop us farting methane directly at the ozone layer, it would slow the Global Warming malarky down to a mere snails pace giving our scientists the opportunity to save Planet Earth, ressurect the Dodo and the Moa. Hallelujah!!!!!!
As for the "thorough" investigation into the leaked e'mails, well, show me the findings please because, IIRC, it was all swept under the carpet without conclusion. Infact the main thrust of the whole investigation was to bring the hackers to court and not to debate the contents of the e'mails!
There is this assumption that, if its scientific, its got to be right, if its all doom and gloom, its got to be right.
Personally, while i do not deny that there may well be Global warming, laying it all on the human race is, frankly, bullsh*t.
Worse, the idea that we start eating lentils, bicycle to work and wear hemp jackets will save the polar bear as well as ourselves is a bloody insult. It actually suggests that we can turn things around and, AFAIK, King Canute could not hold back the tide.
If we are to go to Hell in a hand cart, it will not be because China is building a Coal fired Power Station every day, it will be because their population is exploding to such a degree they HAVE to build one a day.
Overpopulation will contribute to Global warming, cut the Worlds population, by all means, but stop this incessant bull crap that reducing carbon emisssions from the internal combustion engine and the like will save the World, it wont.
A few less billion people breathing would help and, maybe, our brilliant Scientists and our demand for peace on Earth has shot in the foot the two very things that have kept Planet Earths population neat and trim, War and Disease.
The worlds Population growth is untenable and it is the single biggest danger to the human races existence
Wake up!!!

reply to post by LFN69


Sounds like you need to get with the program. Everything you've asked for is easy accessible to anyone who wants to google and indeed, common knowledge to anyone with an iota of knowledge on the subject.

Even if you wanted to be obstinate from a stupid "Humans can't change anything because that would be overstepping god!!!" stance-you would at least be familiar with all the items you demanded.

Please familiarize yourself with the debate and then return.

Also.. wow-the sheer number of logical fallacies in your reply is staggering. It doesn't look at all intentional which makes it more impressive.

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS BULLS--T

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
SOURCE: www.friendsofscience.org...









It is time to recognize the "Globalist Minions" when they rear their heads and not be fooled by their facades; know theses ugly monsters and enemies of humanity for what they are; allies and minions of Eugenics. Don't be fooled by these twits, just get the facts and use the truth to drive them back under their rocks.


Personal Attacks are a TOS Violation, subsequently I have not mentioned any member specifically and expect that it will be a matter of if the shoe fits, you are wearing it.

Here is a footnote on the BS about Peak Oil. If you want to understand what is going on the the planned collapse, listen to Lindsey Williams"



Wake up and stop being stupid sheep herded to slaughter.


The Awakening - Max Igan - Full Length Documentary (2011)

reply to post by MajorKarma


Do you have a source or link for these 'facts'?

It is time to recognize the "Globalist Minions" when they rear their heads and nit be fooled by their facades; know them ugly monsters and enemies of humanity that they are. Don't be fooled by these twits, just get the facts and use the truth to drive them back under their rocks.

Where are these minions? They don't seem to be in government or the MSM. The only Globalists I see are part of or bought off by the Fossil Fuels cartels.

reply to post by MajorKarma


Thanks for adding your source.

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals

Could it be one of the NPO's having money funneled into it from the Fossil Fuels Industry?

We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties

Wonder who is on that Board...

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD

Scientific Advisory Board members volunteer their services to Friends of Science. They receive no funding from us or any other party on our behalf.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.
Dr. de Freitas completed Bachelors and Masters degrees at the University of Toronto, Canada and PhD at the University of Queensland, Australia, as a Commonwealth Doctoral Scholar. During his time at the University of Auckland he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology at the Tamaki Campus and four years as Pro Vice Chancellor. His academic interests are broad but the focus is mostly on climate. He was also a contributing reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Scientific Assessment Reports, 1995 and 2001.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist retired, formerly with Environment Canada.
Dr. Khandekar specializes in understanding extreme weather events in Canada and in other parts of the world. He holds B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics, a M.Sc. in Statistics from India (Pune University) as well as both M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from Florida State University. As one of the world leaders in meteorology. Dr. Khandekar has worked in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography for over 45 years and has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and scientific commentaries as well as a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modelling, published by Springer-Verlag (1989).

Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University.
Dr. Tim Patterson received both a B.Sc. in Biology (1980) and a B.A. in Geology (1983) from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1986. He is Canadian leader of the International Geological Correlation Program Project IGCP 495 “Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and is Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation For Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project studying high-resolution Holocene climate records from anoxic fjords and coast lakes in British Columbia.

Not one Climatologist. They use the same arguments that the science is being done wrong or deliberately manipulated to suit an agenda but they use the same cherry picking that non scientist deniers use.

I'm sure there's someone that can explain why the 'science' on that site is absurd, better than I can.

reply to post by Kali74


Wrong on all fronts about evolution, and climate change, I dont wanna have Nother of these discussions this week, bilut I will destroy your absurd world view for you if you want.

Evolution doesnt happen slowly over time, in fact there is a lot of evidence it is forced in the short term, through rapid extreme changes I e.. the ice age ended just over 10, 000 years ago, and life evolved already...not hard to understand is it?

Or how about the fact life adapted and lived even though a meteor in the gulf of mexico off the Yucatan peninsula, destroying the world in mere hours, yet life is here.

99 percent of the life that ever lived was extinct long before we ever came along, whats your point about species dying? Oh I get it, if any other species wipes out another or even others it ok, but if man does it the world cant cope somhow, lol ya looney liberal crapfest right here.

Every single day rotting plant matter creates more co2 than mans entire history combined, but once aggain nature can handle millions and billions of times more created by nature, but a single drop from man is somehow not doable, lol once again, fruity.

A single volcano eruption creates more than mans entire existance, but once again it can cope, just not if man adds any.

Are you starting to see a patern here? Like if man is involved it is evil and an absolute travesty that cant be handled jo matter what. Sounds like the same tired crap, this thread is rediculous, your assertions are rediculous.

If you want to have an actual discussion that doesnt revolve around the premise man is god like and our actions are beyond any ability of the world to cope, or do anything about, I will be happy to inform you about the real facts, if your only point is to continue spewing ignorant trash, I will simply lol and point out your flawed logic, and laugh even more. While driving my suv, while grilling out on a forest fire in the amazon, while cooking an endangered species, becUse thats what all us ( dieniers) critical thinkers do every day right?

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by LFN69

 

Sounds like you need to get with the program. Everything you've asked for is easy accessible to anyone who wants to google and indeed, common knowledge to anyone with an iota of knowledge on the subject.

Even if you wanted to be obstinate from a stupid "Humans can't change anything because that would be overstepping god!!!" stance-you would at least be familiar with all the items you demanded.

Please familiarize yourself with the debate and then return.

Also.. wow-the sheer number of logical fallacies in your reply is staggering. It doesn't look at all intentional which makes it more impressive.

edit on 3-3-2013 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2013 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)

No, no I dont need to get with "the programme".
By all means continue with the condescending attitude but it does you no favours, you are not that intelligent, dont fool yourself.
Ive asked for the evidence which supports the view that Scientists have proven that Global warming is taking place faster now than for the last billion odd years.
So, what are you waiting for? All the bold statements are being made by the supporters of Global man made warming so hit me between the eyes with it.
I expected, at the very least, a robust defence, instead I got a hand wringing lentil muncher who considers themselves "with the programme" because they "get it" and everybody else who displays a well placed cynicism is, quite naturally, naive to the extremities.
Im impressed with your arrogance, it may get you far in life but not too far in this discussion.
A conciliatory and reasoned tact might grab the attention and demand respect
I do fear, however, that you are so far up your own fundament you feel that us lesser mortals are not worthy.
PS: Im going to take a wild stab at this. Are you American by any chance?
EDIT: You are. Makes perfect sense now. Please see the other thread pertaining to, well, you obviously know because you are a fuggin genius.

natural or man-made, the climate sure is changing. blame is irrelevant. the weather doesn't care who or what caused it.

Originally posted by Kali74

Not one Climatologist. They use the same arguments that the science is being done wrong or deliberately manipulated to suit an agenda but they use the same cherry picking that non scientist deniers use.

I'm curious to know how you define "climatologist".

I am aware that more schools are creating "climatology" programs within larger departments (usually schools that offer degrees in meteorology and/or atmospheric studies) but, I've yet to see a CV that lists a degree in climatology. Even the renowned Dr. James Hansen lacks a degree in "climatology". His degrees are in mathematics, physics and astronomy.

Climatology as a field is multi-disciplinary requiring input from a wide range of experts.

I find it interesting that most people neglect the computer sciences when discussing climate. Predictive climate computer models are not perfect yet. I personally believe that it will improve as more climate drivers are included (regardless of how "insignificant" some scientists believe them to be) but I do understand how some people get defensive when discussing whether or not global warming/climate change does or does not exist.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


I guess we can forget for a minute that this thread isn't so much focused on the science of global warming but on the politics involved, a refutation of alarmism, agenda's and religious fanatacism, and play your game.

Evolution doesnt happen slowly over time, in fact there is a lot of evidence it is forced in the short term, through rapid extreme changes I e.. the ice age ended just over 10, 000 years ago, and life evolved already...not hard to understand is it?

We are technically still in an ice age that began 2+ million years ago because our polar ice caps still exist. The last glacial period is what you're referring to, ended 10,000 or so years ago. Our current global temperature should remain relatively constant for another few thousand years but it isn't, we're getting warmer much sooner than we should be.

The Antarctic Vostok ice core provided compelling evidence of the nature of climate, and of climate feedbacks, over the past
420,000 years. Marine records suggest that the amplitude of climate variability was smaller before that time, but such records are
often poorly resolved. Moreover, it is not possible to infer the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from marine
records. Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000
years. For the four most recent glacial cycles, the data agree well with the record from Vostok. The earlier period, between 740,000
and 430,000 years ago, was characterized by less pronounced warmth in interglacial periods in Antarctica, but a higher proportion
of each cycle was spent in the warm mode. The transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago
(Termination V) resembles the transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures
and greenhouse gases, but there are significant differences in the patterns of change. The interglacial stage following Termination
V was exceptionally long—28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial
period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a
climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.

Source

Or how about the fact life adapted and lived even though a meteor in the gulf of mexico off the Yucatan peninsula, destroying the world in mere hours, yet life is here.

That happened 65 million years ago and destroyed about half of all species on the planet. Mammal like reptiles began emerging about 285 million years ago and full mammals about 210 million years ago. Humans came onto the scene about 100,000 years ago, so it took roughly 285 million years for evolution and climate to be ripe for humanity.

As I've said, it's likely that man-made global warming won't destroy the planet or even all life on the planet, just ourselves and a good portion of all other life... no big deal, right?

99 percent of the life that ever lived was extinct long before we ever came along, whats your point about species dying? Oh I get it, if any other species wipes out another or even others it ok, but if man does it the world cant cope somhow, lol ya looney liberal crapfest right here.

The point is that it's happening too fast for the world to cope. Yes, science is a liberal 'looney crapfest' (yawn)

Every single day rotting plant matter creates more co2 than mans entire history combined, but once aggain nature can handle millions and billions of times more created by nature, but a single drop from man is somehow not doable, lol once again, fruity. A single volcano eruption creates more than mans entire existance, but once again it can cope, just not if man adds any.

You might want to recheck those 'facts' Professor.

Like if man is involved it is evil and an absolute travesty that cant be handled jo matter what.

No. The industrial age is/was phenomenal our ancestors would be blown away at how far we have come, so why stop? Why kill ourselves off? I love humanity and I'd like to see us continue for millions of years, get off this planet before our sun dies. How far can we go?

If I hated humanity, I'd welcome global warming.

reply to post by WillowWisp


Good points.
Thank-you.

Originally posted by SteveR
Six years ago China overtook the U.S. as the world's biggest CO2 emitter. The truth is you can't stop global warming unilaterally. Nor can you do it by playing politics as you are doing in your OP. The Democrats efforts have been a joke (Solyndra). That DoE money would of done more good if it was put into McCain's plan for radically developing nuclear power. The truth is neither party is going to do anything serious, nor is China, India, etc.

So i guess we should just continue to do nothing then hey? i hear this bull# all the time, ''its too hard, lets do nothing instead'' like its a viable alternative to dealing with the problems we have created for ourselves

Note that this post is broken into two parts. It wasn't possible to present my rant in a single post.


First let me set the tone of my reply:

A. I accept the data that indicates Global Climate Change (GCC) is occurring.
B. I accept the data that indicates that GCC is increasing the volatility of our weather patterns.
C. I question the Global Climate Models' (GCM) reliance on Anthropogenic Green House Gas (GHG) emissions as the single major forcing component for GCC predictions. I believe there's more to it. However, I also believe human actions have certainly exacerbated the effects.
D. I believe that some of the institutionally prescribed mitigation strategies for GCC have benefits beyond those of mediating the increase of global temperatures. So, any political activism aimed at getting GHG controls implemented should also address those other benefits. For instance, it may be a lot easier for people to get behind the notion of depriving the global consortium of control of energy prices than it is to even begin to understand the implications of the greenhouse effect on global temperatures.

***The Blame Starts With Each of Us***

We could debate from now until the death of the universe about who's to blame for lack of action on GCC. But, the blame starts with each one of us.

For those who are rabidly in favor of GHG controls, what pain have you inflicted on yourselves in pursuit of your principles?
1. Do you ride your bike to work, or take mass transit? If you ride a bike was it made in your home country? Foreign-made goods incur additional carbon overhead because they are shipped from another country, possibly one with fewer pollution controls than your home country.

2. To what degree do you separate your garbage? Do you compost your organic waste? Many of our localities in the US will only accept a small subset of the items that are recyclable. Do you go to the extra steps necessary to recycle those separated items that aren't handled by your locale?

3. Do you own one of those nifty flat screen LCD TVs? Almost certainly this product was imported, and there's a high probability that it was manufactured in a nation with non-existent, or easily circumvented, pollution controls. If, just after the warranty expires and the TV stops working, you are told by the TV repair shop that it will cost more to fix the old broken one than it is to buy a new one that's larger with more features. Will you follow your principles and pay to have the old one fixed? That's the most carbon responsible route. Otherwise the old broken system winds up in the landfill, and purchasing a new one incurs that whole carbon overhead cost again.

4. How many solar panels do you have on your home? Or do you utilize other alternative energy strategies?

5. Have you replaced all of your incandescent lamps with Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL)? Are you using other "green" technologies that might cost a little extra?

6. Have you planted lots of CO2 sinks (i.e., green plants) in your yard? If so, do you have to water it? What's more important: conservation of H2O or doing your part to control GHG?

7. Etc, etc.

For those who have implemented some of these strategies, or one of countless others, I commend you. You are ahead of the game, and you're putting your money where your mouth is. For others who believe that controls should be put in place, but aren't practicing many of these steps, are you waiting for the government to force us all to share the pain before you act?

For those who rabidly deny GCC, what pain are you willing to bear if the worst case does occur? At some point it may become obvious to you that your theory of conspiracy was incorrect. Given the potential consequence of the correctness of GCC theory, what are you willing to bet on your theory of conspiracy?

---Please see the second post that follows---

---Please see the previous post for an introduction to my rant---

***Forced Implementation of Controls***

One thing to consider with the forced implementation of GHG controls, and other mitigation strategies, is the probability that those changes will make a difference in time to prevent reaching the "tipping point" of irreparable failure.

In order to reasonably affect climate change, it will likely take actions that will be somewhat painful. I suppose you could consider it "carbon austerity." As we have seen with forced implementation of austerity measures in Europe, and we will shortly see in the US, there is a strong backlash in the populace. In those examples, even though it is patently obvious that the existing policies are failing, the individuals do not want to sacrifice their comfort in order to preserve the system as a whole.

If forced mitigation strategies are implemented in a less strenuous fashion, then the populace may experience the less painful measures, but the probability of reaching the "tipping point" is much higher. Thus the negative impacts of the mitigation attempts may be incurred for nothing.

Now you should understand that I believe that the human race is ripe for culling. The population of the planet is growing at a far greater rate than can be sustained by the current mechanisms. The human race has established a very complex system of social-commercial-industrial global interaction that lacks local redundancy. For the most part, this system has grown organically and in an ad hoc fashion. The desire for higher profits and greater convenience has rendered the system brittle and incapable of quick adaptation or autonomous repair. The failure of a single major interface, or even a small number of minor interfaces could cause the entire system to collapse.

Ironically, if the entire global system collapses, many of the institutionally prescribed mitigation strategies will be implemented without requiring any artificial controls. It will be necessary to implement those policies purely as a matter of survival.

Dex