LOBAL WARMING
LOBAL WARMING
Last edited by lagerdemon; 09-03-2013 at 05:49 AM.
Move the sun further away.
Extermination of USA's citizens should be enough.
china is the biggest consumer and polluter in the world, so why not china?
Population count
China 1,359,710,000
United States 316,584,000
therefore USA emit more CO2 per person than China
Why are we using 5 year old statistics to make this EXTREMELY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT decision?
it's cheaper genocide wise
Heard Gammas burn without emitting CO2, so it is quite the environmentally friendly investment.
Meh, Lindzen has been yammering on for decades. He's a consultant for coal and oil companies and is remunerated in the thousands/hr for his services. He has a huge incentive to perpetuate the existing mechanisms of production and appropriation, while I'm not sure what incentive "government" has to propagate the concept of climate change, when Lindzen readily admits it "has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly."
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
True, and Lindzen is thankfully not a climate change denier. He simply claims that we shouldn't give as much of a shit about greenhouse gases and their incipient effects on the atmosphere... and, by extension, allow companies to ride roughshod over environmental regulations (which, according to him, shouldn't even exists in the first place). Does that not seem a bit suspect?
But I would have to say, anyone who believes the money flowing towards research supporting climate change is comparable to the money flowing in the other direction (and tempting the hands of lawmakers in Washington) is hopelessly naive to what is happening in this city. Researchers make a pittance. If you want to be rich, become an oil exec or, failing that, a politician (or, failing that, a lobbyist).
That's what I understood him to mean. What I was asking is, why would the government insist on enacting such policies if they are costly to society (and also are politically quite risky -- environmental regulation is not popular with the people who fund these people's campaigns)? Why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
Last edited by Animal; 09-04-2013 at 02:33 AM.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I support global warming!
I'd rather be hot than cold.
When my dad was a kid, it was a "global freezing" scare. In 50 years, it'll be global freezing again.
This is like freaking out every Spring and Autumn because of the dramatic weather change on its way.
Enjoy the heat.
If I were one of those people who are annoyed by drama, I'd suggest an end to it. Actually...yeah, end it. This is a lame plot.
Itsa disaster
*flails arms around wildly*
Owait. it isn't ):
SOMEONE STOP THESE STATISTICS AND TRENDs, THEY ARE ALL WRONG AND BAD AND WRONG! FOR REASONs.
UPDATE: It was really hot today.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
its one thing to raise questions, but i don't get how someone who hasn't got the education and hasn't put in a comparable amount of time and energy working on the issue as a scientist could be so rabidly confident about whether it's an issue. and when the general consensus in the scientific community is that it is real it just seems like politics to insist it isn't. not that i know. but the next time i hear somebody say, "man its chilly today, so much for global warming," i'm going to suffocate them with a weather balloon.
It's so cold today.
Fucking globularist warmongers.
Temperature isn't weather
Global warming cannot be stopped now. It's already to late. Might as well grieve for the losses and move on.
Lungs, the thing is, most scientists haven't either. simple answer to pollution(ocean acidification, greenhouse gases, etc) problem: REDUCE THE POPULATION. If the population dramatically decreases(specifically the EU, US and China), there will be less consumers, less production, less pollution while still maintaining a high(for EU, US) quality of life or rising(China, rest of the world) quality of life. Otherwise you'll have to wait for technology to catch up with manufacturing, transportation, heating, food production. I don't care if global warming is real or not, and I refuse to use it synonymously with climate change, all I care about is the destruction of non-human nature(wetlands, oceans, forests, etc). I hate strip malls and golf courses as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to bite my nails, wet my pants and cower in fear every time a scientist on tv warns of GLOBAL CATASTROPHE. There's nothing you can legally do about, so why worry so much? Can you name a country that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions? Do you know how many years governments have been promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
@ bolded: basically that paragraph was a longer way of saying that global warming is more of a political issue than a scientific issue.
That position sounds quite reasonable. The thing is, Lindzen's peers have continually claimed that he ignores the science. Again, I didn't major in atmospheric physics, nor have I any extensive firsthand research experience in the field. But everything I've read and the actual scientists I've interacted with who have had that experience (admittedly, many of my friends and the majority of scientists who works in this area work for places like NIH and NIST) support the reality of ACC.
I don't really believe they are alarmist. Unfortunately, the people I have known who do think it's alarmist are also against reasonable environmental regulation. I may have confused Lindzen for a second with James Inhofe and his ilk. Such people exist and the tenor of their rhetoric seems more alarmist to me than most of the climate change supporters.
I'm not sure I buy this behavioral economics (however eloquently stated ) when the actual behavior of these companies so vehemently moves in the opposite direction.
That last paragraph reads to me like a hermeneutic slight-of-hand by which any appeal to science is rhetoricized as blind religion, which I think is highly disingenuous. Yes, Scientism exists, but in the presence of an actual scientific dialectic wherein there really is compelling evidence to move towards policy that curtails the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the use of such a term is rather inapropos. You could argue that science operates under an ideology of positivism. I've seen many people make that claim in philosophical circles, but not in a political or policy context, which must operate on the basis of some pragmatism.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
The mammals of the Jurassic and Triassic Eras were quite a bit smaller and barely resembled mammals as we know them today. Again, what human-like or other moderately-sized, land-dwelling, warm-blooded creatures would have thrived under the conditions of those eras prior to the Cenozoic? There are definitely ideal conditions under which creatures with certain adaptations thrive. There's a reason dinosaurs, these huge, cold-blooded creatures, thrived in the Mesozoic Era. And we humans have adapted to the present biosphere. I'm not sure how useful retroprojections are. It won't always be thus. There will come a time when the conditions of this planet prove inhospitable. But there's no sense in tempting fate.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I'd advocate taking it a few steps further and killing any moron who makes snide strawman arguments like that. Not just about global warming.
Anyway, global warming is happening and Man has a significant contribution to the warming due to increased CO2, water vapor and methane emissions. This is pretty much as much a scientific fact as possible. The only people left who deny this are people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and conspiracy theorists who don't trust scientists to begin with.
That said, Kyoto was stupid, trading carbon credits is a waste of time and everyone is still just talking about global warming rather than doing anything about it because it's not an enormous problem. One should look up the accompanying global cooling that supposedly follows global warming due to decreases in sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some and role lovin too. () I too...
!!!!!!
Those retroprojections are problematic and the earth was a very different planet back then. At any rate, I'm not really as concerned about global warming (as in temperature fluctuations) as its sister issues: air and water pollution and deforestation. I think those are far more immediate dangers than greenhouse gases, per se.
Anyway, I wish heath were still here. He knew stuff about this.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
It depends. "Air and water" pollution often go hand-in-hand with global warming as they're all negative by-products of human activity. To be honest, the "Global Warming Alarmists" who were predicting a catastrophic end to the world did more harm to the hypothesis than anything they've accomplished.
So yes, don't believe the doom-and-gloom "pundits" as they have just as much something to gain as the establishment whom they're trying to tear down.
Besides, if the environment and the creatures living within it weren't adaptable we'd all be dead by now, wouldn't we?
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some and role lovin too. () I too...
!!!!!!
Would we? Lul.
Complete and utter bollocks, for there wouldn't be any 'we' in the first place. Every organism after adaptation to the new environment is not the same organism - it is something new. Just as I would acquire you and kick you in the arse so hard you would leave the orbit and land on the surface of the Sun, you would end up a new organism, completely different from what you were before, providing you would survive of course.
This is the reason you have to have numbers to survive, not one, not two, not three but millions, to survive in a hostile environment. Numbers secure survival, and if one or twenty die trying to adapt, maybe the twenty first is going to make it and adapt...