2014 Warmest Year on Record? Wwweeeellll...

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Yep and this is a direct

 Yep and this is a direct result of a century of allowing big business to do whatever the hell it wants. 

Now no that does NOT mean all business is bad, but it becomes like a religion in that humans cling to the past too much and don't adapt quickly enough. 

We need to get off burning fossil fuels, the sooner the better.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Yep and this

Brian37 wrote:

 Yep and this is a direct result of a century of allowing big business to do whatever the hell it wants. 

Now no that does NOT mean all business is bad, but it becomes like a religion in that humans cling to the past too much and don't adapt quickly enough. 

We need to get off burning fossil fuels, the sooner the better.

 

This is why science is corrupted by govt, among about a billion other examples

They don't even frame the argument against catastrophic climate change correctly, NO, let me repeat this, NO serious climate skeptic denies that carbon traps heat and raises temp.

The argument centers over the feedback loops and how much that amplifies the rise.

Skeptics claim the feedback loops are over exaggerated, and Im inclined to agree seeing as how rises in temp have been lower than predicted

I was under the assumption that if reality contradicts your theory you modify the theory

You do realize the Govt, mainly the military, burns more CO2 than a lot of countries right?

Do you actually have a solution that resolves the issue and doesn't involve the death of probably millions of people if you just cut off fossil fuels?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
that's another thing about

that's another thing about brian. he's never offered a concrete solution to anything.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eh, using a percentage in

Eh, using a percentage in this case is misleading for the public, who don't understand margin of error in the first place. 

Quote:
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

This is much better. Rather disengenuous to claim 2014 was the warmest year on record according to this, without any caveats. Although, it's not like they hid their research...I assume.

This might be more the fault of the media than anyone else. 

Quote:
but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error.

Quote:
Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admits there's a margin of error

This is worded really weird. It makes it sound like it's supposed to be damning for scientists to "admit" that there was a margin of error. Well, no shiiittt. That is inherent in all scientific research involving any quantitative analysis whatsoever. If the writer thought this was some sort of silver bullet against NASA, then he's either ignorant or just plain dishonest.

The key here would be how large the margin of error was.

Berkeley seems to sum it up pretty well.

Quote:
‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.'

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah I don't blame (most)

 

Yeah I don't blame (most) of the scientists. Any journalism report on any complex field is likely to grossly misrepresent everything. The problem comes in when it is being used as a political football. There are certainly many who use global warming fears as a method of achieving unrelated goals. Rational and viable solutions are rarely discussed in political rhetoric.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Yep and this

Brian37 wrote:

 Yep and this is a direct result of a century of allowing big business to do whatever the hell it wants. 

Now no that does NOT mean all business is bad, but it becomes like a religion in that humans cling to the past too much and don't adapt quickly enough. 

We need to get off burning fossil fuels, the sooner the better.

 

 

And if you raise the minimum wage, won't all these people consume more and drive more? Why not? So you would force them to use more expensive energy?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Butter and

I agree with Butter and Beyond. Everything has a margin of error. That is the price paid when one isn't omniscient. Our very existence has a margin of error.
This article is nothing more than an example of the shoddy and intellectually devoid journalism that has destroyed the usefulness of news media to the public. The writers and editors should be arrested or at least sued for propogating bullshit. Too bad it isn't illegal to lie in the news.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.sott.net/article

 http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data. In other words...it's OK to fudge the numbers if it meets the prescribed agenda....Eye-wink

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Human caused climate

 Human caused climate change is not in dispute anymore than evolution is in dispute or gravity is in dispute.

 

Businesses who get rich off polluting the planet have an intrest in lying. Just like they did about lead in gas. Just like Nader had to drag car companies kicking and screaming into producing safer cars.

Only an idiot denies that we are causing climate change and that denial is as moronic as denying the Holocaust.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

 http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data. In other words...it's OK to fudge the numbers if it meets the prescribed agenda....Eye-wink

Sigh....jesus christ.

Did anyone bother to even read the actual paper? Or even just the actual abstract?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Oh...here is another link.

 Oh...here is another link.  Enjoy...Smiling

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV. Smiling

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote: Oh...here

Burnedout wrote:

 Oh...here is another link.  Enjoy...Smiling

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV. Smiling

 

 

     Jesus Christ, Suzuki the climate fascist wants people who dissent from his point of view regarding global warming to be prosecuted ?  What a fucking prick.   


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Businesses

Brian37 wrote:

 Businesses who get rich off polluting the planet have an intrest in lying. Just like they did about lead in gas.


awesome grab from the past. did you see the documentary on Clair Patterson or see the Cosmos episode about him!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:  Oh...here

Burnedout wrote:

 Oh...here is another link.  Enjoy...Smiling

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV. Smiling


Honestly, I immediately wiki'd David Suzuki, discovered that his field was zoology and genetics and wasn't interested in the video after that. Regardless of the outcome, I don't care to watch a climate change debate between one individual that doesn't have expertise in relevant fields and other individuals that also don't have any expertise in any relevant fields, especially if it's an on-the-fly verbal lashing with virtually no informative explanations being given by either side. It's pointless and has absolutely no bearing on actual scientific research and peer review that is occurring every day.

But, I watched it anyways, but only made it about halfway through the video. Suzuki's responses to Stewart Franks pissed me off. He dodged his first question about whether "it was possible" that the IPCC exaggerated at least some of their numbers. Perhaps he was afraid of "harming" his cause or something along those lines, but imo, nothing will hurt more than being intellectually disengenuous. His answer has to be "yes," of course it is possible. Then, Suzuki resorted to an implicit ad hominem, stating that climate skeptics are usually receiving bribes from the fossil fuel industry. Even if this is true, this type of response generally does not sit well with an intelligent audience, especially one that is sitting on the fence. It's even worse when you consider that Stewart Franks is one of only a handful of actual scientists in relevant fields that could be considered global warming skeptics, and he seems to only be rejecting catastrophic man-made global warming specifically.

Suzuki's response to the first person wasn't that great either. Overall, it seems like he was not prepared at all, which is really a shame. Even if this is not his field, as someone who's essentially traveling the world as an activist for governments to act on man-made global warming, he should have done enough homework to have answers prepared for all the questions that are the most likely to come up, and it is obvious that common criticisms of the IPCC's research would be some of the first topics to come up. 

Burnedout wrote:

 http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data. In other words...it's OK to fudge the numbers if it meets the prescribed agenda....Eye-wink

Now, for this article. 

First of all, if there really was an article that urged all scientists to fudge their numbers, they would immediately be torn apart in the peer review process. Stupid internet blogs like this one certainly wouldn't need to pile on top, assuming they had anything constructive to say at all. Also, there's something weirdly inconsistent about global warming conspiracy theorists even criticizing a scientific paper in this manner. If scientists are really all conspiring to hide the truth, then why would they post an article telling all scientists to lie about their research findings on a fully public website, accessible by anyone?

Anyways, here is what sott.net quoted.

Anthony Watts wrote:
"news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency."

"We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreement) which will eventually enhance global welfare."

Now, here is the actual abstract.

abstract wrote:
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information.

We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

I suppose I won't accuse them of quote mining since they have the actual abstract on the same page, but let's see what they left out, without using any ellipsis. 

This part: "by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information."

And this part: "From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

I find the second quote to be more interesting, so let's tackle that one first. Watts asserts that these two scientists are urging people to manipulate data and exaggerate claims about global warming to make people believe it. I assume he is showing this part of the abstract as evidence, "We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare." Watts implication here is that since data manipulation makes global warming look worse, it makes more people act on global warming, which will help to fight global warming. Hence, instrumental value; hence, global welfare. But, then why do they also have this part. "From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

Let's take a look at the actual paper.

actual science as opposed to bullshit from the scientifically illiterate wrote:
The IEA literature generally takes the pessimistic view that an IEA has little chance of success in resolving the climate problem because strong free-riding incentives prevent a sufficient number of countries from participating in that agreement. Using a modified IEA model with two states and asymmetric information, we show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufficient IEA participation. When the media or pro-environmental organizations have private information on the damage caused by climate change, in equilibrium they may manipulate this information to increase pessimism regarding climate damage, even though the damage may not be that great. Consequently, more countries (with overpessimistic beliefs about climate damage) will be induced to participate in an IEA in this state, thereby leading to greater global welfare ex post. In essence, overpessimism mitigates the problem of underparticipation that is caused by free-riding incentives. However, because people update their beliefs using the Bayesian rule, such information manipulation has a negative externality on the other state when climate damage is really huge, in which case the aforementioned information provider will not be sufficiently trusted even if it indicates the true state. As a result, the participation level falls further in this situation. Overall, information manipulation has an ambiguous effect on IEA membership and global welfare from the ex ante perspective.

In other words, if we look at this topic ex post, as in retrospectively, as in what has already happened, it seems that data manipulation can increase participation in efforts to curb global warming. However, if people realize that data manipulation is occurring, they will lose trust in information providers even when the data is completely honest. Ergo, ex ante, as in before the event, as in looking to the future, it is unclear (read: ambiguous) whether data manipulation would increase participation in efforts to curb global warming overall. 

That pretty much says it all right there. I rather doubt that the main purpose of these two scientists was to tell all scientists to manipulate data on global warming when their main conclusion is that they're unsure as to whether data manipulation would lead to more participation in global warming activism. 

Now that we have established that much, let's look at the first quote from before with fresh eyes.

"by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information."

By only quoting the part that says, "This article provides a rationale for this tendency," Watts makes it sound like the scientists are forming an argument defending data manipulation. But, it seems to me, especially if we include the part that was left out (ditto), that these scientists are merely using a model, statistics, and some game theory to attempt to quantity the effect of data manipulation on global warming participation, certainly without any comment on the moral duty of society to do so. Why? Because unlike the tards that are misrepresenting legitimate research for their own agenda, these people are actually scientists. Hell, like half of their article is functions and Riemann sums. Much of the rest of their article reads more like a criticism of the media, Al Gore, and the IPCC than anything else. Perhaps Watts can't comprehend the real purpose of these two scientists because he can't comprehend this level of objectivity. 

Now, Burnedout, this took a while, and I don't have an infinite amount of free time. So, if you decide to just spam like 10 more links, it's highly unlikely that I, or anyone else here for that matter, would respond to them extensively like I just did. Hence, if nothing I've said stuck, I'm sure you could just post more of your "sources," then declare victory. But, instead of that, I hope you take the time to research the views you hold and look at all opinions with a skeptical mindset, especially our own. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Butterbattle, My point in

 Butterbattle,

 

My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.  You see, I am a total cynic of about every institution.  Religion is the big rouse.  Guess what, the scientific fields are just about as corrupt and no more wedded to the scientific method than many large scale religions are to their dogma when it is all boiled down..  It all comes down to who pays the bills and brings in the money.  That's all.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:My point in

Burnedout wrote:

My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.

This isn't a debate.

As for the use of the word agenda...


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.

This isn't a debate.

As for the use of the word agenda...

 

Agenda...(at least the context I use it) defined:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/political+agenda

Quote:
noun

a set of policies or issues to be addressed or pursued by an individual orgroup; also, a set of underlying motives for political policy.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout

Burnedout wrote:
My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.

Agenda...(at least the context I use it) defined:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/political+agenda noun

a set of policies or issues to be addressed or pursued by an individual orgroup; also, a set of underlying motives for political policy.

Are you speaking in the sense of this discussion between the people who use this forum or the political nature of climate control and how politicians and big business have a hidden motive?


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Burnedout wrote:
My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.

Agenda...(at least the context I use it) defined:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/political+agenda noun

a set of policies or issues to be addressed or pursued by an individual orgroup; also, a set of underlying motives for political policy.

Are you speaking in the sense of this discussion between the people who use this forum or the political nature of climate control and how politicians and big business have a hidden motive?

 

Short answer...YES.  In addition...I will say that the business interests are not just oil and gas and other old industries, but also the so-called green tech that is mooching billions in subsidies off of government.  Both sides are battling for supremecy and both are dishonest.  You can blame the Koch Brothers, but to ignore the people like Tom Steyer and George Soros is also ignoring half the combatants. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout

Burnedout wrote:

 Butterbattle,

My point in all this silly debate is that there is no truly honest debate.  Everybody has some kind of agenda.  You see, I am a total cynic of about every institution.  Religion is the big rouse. Guess what, the scientific fields are just about as corrupt and no more wedded to the scientific method than many large scale religions are to their dogma when it is all boiled down..  It all comes down to who pays the bills and brings in the money.  That's all.  

By moving past my previous post and going back to establishing worldviews, I'm assuming you're either trying to find some common ground between us or trying to avoid responding to my post or maybe a combination of both. Maybe you don't have the time or care to respond; that's okay, I suppose......as long as you did read it. However, you still have not quite established common ground. I agree, in some sense, with part of what you said, but completely disagree with the rest.  

Being skeptical of authority is a very good thing. Obviously, I agree with that. In fact, no one here is going to say that we should just accept whatever we are told. That, by itself, is a rather trivial point. However, that is not the same as saying that the scientific fields are just as corrupt as many large scale religions. That is a different assertion that has to be justified.  

Here is my counter-attempt to establish common ground. Using reason and evidence is an effective method of establishing reality, and the scientific method is a reliable way of establishing reality in that it is THE formalization of the process by which we use reason and evidence. Ergo, to the extent that we humans correctly apply the scientific method on any topic, we stand the best chance of having the best model of reality. If we define a scientific field as the study of a topic using the scientific method, then that "field" stands a better chance of determining reality than any religous commentary on that topic. Because by definition, religions are based on faith and contain a pre-set list of beliefs which are beyond the scope of reason and science. 

I assume you agree with me so far. That was the easy part. Now, I'll try for something a lot harder. If you say that "everybody" has some kind of agenda, then you are saying that "you" have an agenda. Since I am literally in-training to be the Navy's version of a meteorologist, which puts me on the periphery of the current institution that you would describe as "about as corrupt as many religions," you would certainly be saying that "I" have an agenda. But, if you say that you are skeptical or, in your words, "a total cynic" of every institution, then you have to be a total cynic of every institution pushing for all the beliefs that you currently hold as well, whether that be global warming skeptics, American Atheists, zeitgeist movement, anarchists, whatever. However, my impression upon looking at the links you posted is that you are NOT a cynic of the links you posted because you presented them with the implication that they somehow debunk the scientific consensus for man-made global warming in an open forum without researching them or really thinking them through, particularly the second link concerning the research paper, which you clearly did not understand, and I doubt you even skimmed through it. Ostensibly, that makes you NOT a total cynic. That makes you a cynic of ideas you already disagree with while being too accepting of ideas you already agree with. 

This is a zero sum line of thought anyways.

We have to start this from a different angle, which is that if you agree that reason and evidence are effective, then the answer is simple; we start from that. So, it is not a question of 'who you believe' or 'what you believe.' It is 'why you believe' or 'how you believe.' It doesn't matter if you're with the majority or the minority or agree/disagree with any corrupt institution or group of people. All that matters is what is really correct based on reason and evidence.

Do I trust Monsanto? Hell no! But, that is a different question than whether we should use GMOs. Do I trust Al Gore? Uh....no. Do I trust the IPCC? Not much. But, that is a different question entirely from the question we should be asking.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 If it man made global

 

If it man made global warming really was an impeding crisis, they would advocate for worldwide mandatory birth control. They would clamoring to pump money into NASA to build a space based solar reflector system and pushing to make fusion power go online  faster.

But none of that. Only that I should pay more taxes, be forced to drive a prius and stop eating meat. So I guess it is only half a crisis.

This is how you know all global warming alarmists have a hidden agenda. Plus they must never talk of any benefits:

 

http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-possible-benefits-of-global-warming/

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: If it man made

EXC wrote:

 

If it man made global warming really was an impeding crisis, they would advocate for worldwide mandatory birth control. They would clamoring to pump money into NASA to build a space based solar reflector system and pushing to make fusion power go online  faster.

But none of that. Only that I should pay more taxes, be forced to drive a prius and stop eating meat. So I guess it is only half a crisis.

This is how you know all global warming alarmists have a hidden agenda. Plus they must never talk of any benefits:

 

http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-possible-benefits-of-global-warming/

 

I support birth control. way too many people here.

I also support a solar deflector. It doesn't need to be very big either. A deflector the size of a medium car could lower temperatures 2 degrees on earth.

while some people are about making a profit, those carpet baggers are not a reason to claim global warming is a farce.

#4 and #3 are totally false. The flu is not a cold weather sickness. Also the same could be said if it gets too hot out people will stay indoors thus increasing the need for flu shots.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Those actions require

Those actions require participation from the entire population of the planet. Which isn't likely in general, or even possible without big government (how ironic that exc would depend on a solution that he is vehemently against).

Butter did a great job destroying the fictional bs, so I'll just agree with him. No need to add anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I also

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I also support a solar deflector. It doesn't need to be very big either. A deflector the size of a medium car could lower temperatures 2 degrees on earth.

That's complete bullshit. Every proposed idea I've ever read was substantially larger than a car. Just what we need though, some dumb ass fuckwit building something to deflect the sun and cause immediate and rapid cooling because we are worried that a one degree increase over a century. As if we have any basis to assume that the current climate is in any way ideal. It will be amazing if humans don't wipe themselves out over the next few centuries. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If it man made

EXC wrote:
If it man made global warming really was an impeding crisis, they would advocate for worldwide mandatory birth control. They would clamoring to pump money into NASA to build a space based solar reflector system and pushing to make fusion power go online  faster.

But none of that. Only that I should pay more taxes, be forced to drive a prius and stop eating meat. So I guess it is only half a crisis.

Meh, politicians themselves aren't necessarily sure if global warming is occurring or how bad it is, and they don't want to tell their voters to do things their voters don't want to do because the voters aren't sure either. This was also covered in that earlier article. 

So, countries have a hard time even agreeing to lower emissions or......do anything really. This only shows that governments (e.g. our congress) have a hard time getting stuff done; it certainly doesn't prove that climate scientists are disengenuous. We also don't want to confuse scientists with politicians or with the media.

Also, I'm not going to stop eating meat, lol. 

Ooohhh, this is fun. 

10. Okay, yeah, probably.

9. Since we can already harvest multiple times a year using GMOs, I'm not sure how much of a benefit this would be. You can kind of lump it together with #10.

8. Well....yeah.

7. Probably. Ditto, higher sea levels overall. 

6. Hmm, maybe.

5. More energy for air conditioning though?

4. Hmm, I don't know about that.

3. Maybe.

2. I actually like winters, not like super cold though...

1. Definitely. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Statistically, people

Statistically, people automatically use more birth control and have less kids when countries become more prosperous. Generally, countries that are having too many kids are super shitty ountries where a ton of the kids will die from malnutrition and disease. In contrast, really nice countries like Germany and Japan (where the population is decreasing) are, arguably, not having enough kids. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

I doubt Niger is going to go to the UN, agree to mandatory birth control its country, then succeeed in becoming a first world country anytime soon.

This is why I won't give any money to charities trying to save people in these types of countries. More medicine + more food + more water = more really stupid people, which means you need even more resources to support them. If the focus was on education or birth control or other things that will actually improve the region, I might support that. If there is one thing that Ayn Rand got right, it's that well-intentioned charity doesn't necessarily lead to results. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I also support a solar deflector. It doesn't need to be very big either. A deflector the size of a medium car could lower temperatures 2 degrees on earth.

That's complete bullshit. Every proposed idea I've ever read was substantially larger than a car. Just what we need though, some dumb ass fuckwit building something to deflect the sun and cause immediate and rapid cooling because we are worried that a one degree increase over a century. As if we have any basis to assume that the current climate is in any way ideal. It will be amazing if humans don't wipe themselves out over the next few centuries. 

I gotta agree that it will be amazing if we the entire human race isn't wiped out in the next few centuries. I'm not sure what you were reading but the solar deflectors I'm thinking of are not panels. I was talking of magnetic fields.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It doesn't really matter.

It doesn't really matter. Nothing can block out sunlight to Earth without effecting everyone and everything on Earth; unless it is exceptionally massive in size and extremely close in proximity. Anything less then prohibitively massive and close (and thereby too expensive to build and maintain) will cause millions of people to experience negative effects. And the overall effect on Earth is incalculable. It's a bad idea. We're better off with climate change.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It doesn't

Vastet wrote:
It doesn't really matter. Nothing can block out sunlight to Earth without effecting everyone and everything on Earth; unless it is exceptionally massive in size and extremely close in proximity. Anything less then prohibitively massive and close (and thereby too expensive to build and maintain) will cause millions of people to experience negative effects. And the overall effect on Earth is incalculable. It's a bad idea. We're better off with climate change.

Pessimist.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Realism and pessimism are

Realism and pessimism are often mistaken for each other.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: I'm

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 I'm not sure what you were reading but the solar deflectors I'm thinking of are not panels. I was talking of magnetic fields.

You and Deepak Chopra.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I'm

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'm not sure what you were reading but the solar deflectors I'm thinking of are not panels. I was talking of magnetic fields.

Okay.......wait.....what?

Eh.....can you elaborate on what you mean by magnetic fields as solar deflectors?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I chose to let that slide.

I chose to let that slide. Magnetic fields can block radiation, and light is technically radiation. So in my admittedly layman comprehension, it is theoretically possible. Actually pulling it off, today, is a different story...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 I'm not sure what you were reading but the solar deflectors I'm thinking of are not panels. I was talking of magnetic fields.

You and Deepak Chopra.

 

lol... he's one of those people I was talking about previously who <facepalm> I mean... talk about profit makers.

No.. seriously. There was a group making small magnetic fields for space stations and for the the people who 'might' go to Mars. They have these small mini-magnetic field generators which deflect solar winds/radiation/whatever. The idea was to have one that was close to the sun in synchronous orbit with the Earth. It would generate a magnetic field and get a majority of its power from the Sun. It's not something they have made yet but their are smaller designs currently in the making for use on in outer space for the space station. Baby steps. I don't expect them to do this over night.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It doesn't

Vastet wrote:
It doesn't really matter. Nothing can block out sunlight to Earth without effecting everyone and everything on Earth; unless it is exceptionally massive in size and extremely close in proximity. Anything less then prohibitively massive and close (and thereby too expensive to build and maintain) will cause millions of people to experience negative effects. And the overall effect on Earth is incalculable. It's a bad idea. We're better off with climate change.

 

Actually the ideal place to put it would be the Lagrange point between earth and sun. The materials could be mined from the moon and fabricated in space. No need to launch anything except  robots and some tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
 

So your theory is that only mankind can only effect climate as an unintended  consequence of people like me driving an SUV. If humans actually put our minds to controlling the climate, it is impossible?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Statistically, people automatically use more birth control and have less kids when countries become more prosperous.

I think there is some confusing of cause and effect in this statement. I believe it is more accurate to say a low birth rate goes hand in hand with a more prosperity. Each one affects the other.

Look what happened in China,, from a 3rd world backwater with massive famines to owning the USA's ass since they started mandatory family planning.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 I'm not sure what you were reading but the solar deflectors I'm thinking of are not panels. I was talking of magnetic fields.

You and Deepak Chopra.

 

lol... he's one of those people I was talking about previously who <facepalm> I mean... talk about profit makers.

No.. seriously. There was a group making small magnetic fields for space stations and for the the people who 'might' go to Mars. They have these small mini-magnetic field generators which deflect solar winds/radiation/whatever. The idea was to have one that was close to the sun in synchronous orbit with the Earth. It would generate a magnetic field and get a majority of its power from the Sun. It's not something they have made yet but their are smaller designs currently in the making for use on in outer space for the space station. Baby steps. I don't expect them to do this over night.

 

Sure, but you are talking about something significantly larger than a car. The proposals I've seen all include things that are literally thousands of square miles and would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions to even attempt to build. Which is probably a good thing because I think attempting something so extreme is incredibly risky and it is impossible to account for all the unintended consequences that very well might lead to the demise of human kind. The effects of global warming are extremely easy for us to adapt to, there is no reason to attempt to cool the world. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:butterbattle

EXC wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Statistically, people automatically use more birth control and have less kids when countries become more prosperous.

I think there is some confusing of cause and effect in this statement. I believe it is more accurate to say a low birth rate goes hand in hand with a more prosperity. Each one affects the other.

Look what happened in China,, from a 3rd world backwater with massive famines to owning the USA's ass since they started mandatory family planning.

Oh...right. Yeah, I agree.

Of course, with that example, there are various other factors in play, but having less mouths to feed clearly improved the quality of life of the average household. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:there is

Beyond Saving wrote:
there is no reason to attempt to cool the world. 

Are you kidding? I'd love to be able to walk out on to the ocean with 6ft of ice below me.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sure,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, but you are talking about something significantly larger than a car. The proposals I've seen all include things that are literally thousands of square miles and would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions to even attempt to build. Which is probably a good thing because I think attempting something so extreme is incredibly risky and it is impossible to account for all the unintended consequences that very well might lead to the demise of human kind. The effects of global warming are extremely easy for us to adapt to, there is no reason to attempt to cool the world. 

You're right it is too expensive if government contractors get involved.

Crowdfunding and volunteers could get it done.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/going-liftport-gets-set-crowdfunded-space-elevator-test-n189561

First step is build space elevator for the moon. It's mainly a complex engineering task. But it can an be designed and simulated on computers by volunteers.

Building a large structure in space is way easier because there is no gravity but mainly because there are no zoning laws(yet).

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:It

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It doesn't really matter. Nothing can block out sunlight to Earth without effecting everyone and everything on Earth; unless it is exceptionally massive in size and extremely close in proximity. Anything less then prohibitively massive and close (and thereby too expensive to build and maintain) will cause millions of people to experience negative effects. And the overall effect on Earth is incalculable. It's a bad idea. We're better off with climate change.

 

Actually the ideal place to put it would be the Lagrange point between earth and sun. The materials could be mined from the moon and fabricated in space. No need to launch anything except  robots and some tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

 

Sure, if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in setting up mining operations and launch platforms on the moon, as well as the construction of factories in space. Because robots and tools won't be accomplishing your pipe dream any time soon.
 

EXC wrote:
So your theory is that only mankind can only effect climate as an unintended  consequence of people like me driving an SUV. If humans actually put our minds to controlling the climate, it is impossible?

This better be directed at someone else. Otherwise it's a straw man. Typical EXC bullshit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sure, if you

Vastet wrote:

Sure, if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in setting up mining operations and launch platforms on the moon, as well as the construction of factories in space. Because robots and tools won't be accomplishing your pipe dream any time soon.

Space(including cyberspace) is not plaged by the problems of earth that make things so expensive(politics, regulation, overpopulation, corporate privledge, labor unions. etc...)

Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:
So your theory is that only mankind can only effect climate as an unintended  consequence of people like me driving an SUV. If humans actually put our minds to controlling the climate, it is impossible?

This better be directed at someone else. Otherwise it's a straw man. Typical EXC bullshit.

I'm asking you to clarify.

This typical of the Global warming alarmists :The earth  tiny and fragile when it comes to they question of can I drive an SUV., but iti's so enormous and solid when it comes to buiding a solor deflector. Which is ti?

It's really about using this for back-door marxism. Everyone should consume the same and drive the same kind of car and have the same net income after taxes. Only the communist party leaders would have any privledge to consume more. They need a crisis to push the agenda.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:Sure,

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Sure, if you ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in setting up mining operations and launch platforms on the moon, as well as the construction of factories in space. Because robots and tools won't be accomplishing your pipe dream any time soon.

Space(including cyberspace) is not plaged by the problems of earth that make things so expensive(politics, regulation, overpopulation, corporate privledge, labor unions. etc...)

Irrelevant. There also isn't any production or acquisition technology present, which far outweighs the cost cutting you speak of.

Worse, by the time we are mining the solar system in force, most of those things will indeed be present in space. By the time two companies start mining, politics will already be an issue. By the time ten companies are mining, corporate priviledge and overpopulation will be an issue. Regulation will be instituted when those companies start fighting with each other over lucrative locations. And unions will be an issue even before mining begins.

It is inevitable. Space is not the libertarian dream you think it is.

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:
So your theory is that only mankind can only effect climate as an unintended  consequence of people like me driving an SUV. If humans actually put our minds to controlling the climate, it is impossible?

This better be directed at someone else. Otherwise it's a straw man. Typical EXC bullshit.

I'm asking you to clarify.

Clarify what? 

EXC wrote:
This typical of the Global warming alarmists :The earth  tiny and fragile when it comes to they question of can I drive an SUV., but iti's so enormous and solid when it comes to buiding a solor deflector. Which is ti?

I never said the earth is tiny and fragile when it comes to you driving a suv. Frankly, I have never jumped on board with the alarmist doomsayers regarding climate change. There will be significant issues and problems to deal with, but climate change is hardly a threat to life on earth; let alone the earth itself.

EXC wrote:
It's really about using this for back-door marxism. Everyone should consume the same and drive the same kind of car and have the same net income after taxes. Only the communist party leaders would have any privledge to consume more. They need a crisis to push the agenda.

More strawmen. Only an idiot would believe that everyone should drive the same car and eat the same food. Not only would such stupidity be impractical and exhorbitantly expensive, it would also reduce technological and societal advancement. Even after nearly 10 years of being smacked in the head over and over, you still think the only socialism is a reflection of Soviet Russia. You are a perfect match for the definition of moron. Only the extreme increase of stupidity from Brian37 in the last couple years has allowed you to step up from being the most irrational fool on the site. But you are still a solid second place.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Considering

Vastet wrote:

Considering that's where I grew up, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Until it also got too hot. It's not nearly as cold there as it was when I lived there. I'm more thinking the Rockies. Effects are weaker at that elevation. And the water is nice and clean. I'll be dead before there's year round above 0 temperatures through all of Canada. Especially if climate change wipes out a third of the people contributing to it. > >

So we see youir agenda, you don't care how many others may die, as long as you survive. So why should anyone listen to you?

Yes, your brand of marxism is different than the Soviet Union, instead of making the rich and upper middle class poor or putting them in gulags, you want them dead. Just kill anyone with more than you and we'll have equality.

The fact remains to agree with you, one most hold contadictory views.

To believe that man-made greenhouse gasses can cause significant temperature rise, one must also believe the earth is tiny and fragile and that the number of peaple in the world is huge. But then to believe that is is impossible to contruct something that would decrease earth's temperature, one must believe that the earth is enormous and stable and that the earth's population is so small that we'd never be able to find enough workers and donors to construct such a device.

You say there are not enough potential rich donors to fund such a project, so the number of wealth people in the world is small. Then in other posts, the answer to plight of the poor is to give them the wealth of the rich, which means one must believe there is an abundance of rich peole with too much money in the world.

So just change your world view to suit your agenda. But I'm the irrational one.

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So we see youir

EXC wrote:
So we see youir agenda, you don't care how many others may die, as long as you survive. So why should anyone listen to you?

Wrong. My survival is irrelevant. I am one of the very few people on this planet who has fundamentally accepted death and has no fear of it. If I must die to make things better for those who follow, then so be it. I have no desire to just roll over and die, and I'll fight to live as much as the next guy, but I'll never sacrifice others just for my benefit. That you would still think otherwise after all this time is very telling of your own character.

EXC wrote:
Yes, your brand of marxism is different than the Soviet Union, instead of making the rich and upper middle class poor or putting them in gulags, you want them dead. Just kill anyone with more than you and we'll have equality.

You confuse my acknowledgement of the inevitable repeat of history for a desire to see it happen. I'd much rather the rich stop hoarding wealth at the expense of the poor. That's why I'm quite public about how bad a move it is. But if that doesn't change before a revolt begins, then so be it. I'll be on the winning side.

EXC wrote:
The fact remains to agree with you, one most hold contadictory views.

No, actually, that applies to your views. Not mine.

EXC wrote:
To believe that man-made greenhouse gasses can cause significant temperature rise, one must also believe the earth is tiny and fragile and that the number of peaple in the world is huge.

Bullshit, on all counts. That you would even think this shows how out of touch you are with reality.

EXC wrote:
But then to believe that is is impossible to contruct something that would decrease earth's temperature, one must believe that the earth is enormous and stable and that the earth's population is so small that we'd never be able to find enough workers and donors to construct such a device.

I never said anything about impossible. It is possible to have colonies of thousands of people on Mars and Luna as well as dozens of space stations within 10 years. That doesn't mean its going to happen.

EXC wrote:
You say there are not enough potential rich donors to fund such a project, so the number of wealth people in the world is small.

I didn't say that either. As usual, you are the master of the strawman argument.

EXC wrote:
Then in other posts, the answer to plight of the poor is to give them the wealth of the rich, which means one must believe there is an abundance of rich peole with too much money in the world.

There is. But the answer does not simply lie in giving the poor more wealth. You'll never comprehend how amazingly far away from comprehending you are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow...okay. You didn't

Wow...okay. You didn't really process a single word I wrote, did you? You post yet another link without a single productive comment as if you've made some irrefutable argument. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Wow...okay. You didn't really process a single word I wrote, did you? You post yet another link without a single productive comment as if you've made some irrefutable argument. 

 

 

The problem with the whole field is that it has lost credibility.  The figures are tainted by falsifying data.  People complain about the Koch Brothers on the right, well, you have people like Tom Steyer on the left who poised to make BIG $$$ by finacially backing it.  I don't buy the figures presented by the people in the science.  That simple. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:[ EXC

Vastet wrote:
[
EXC wrote:
The fact remains to agree with you, one most hold contadictory views.
No, actually, that applies to your views. Not mine.

So set the record strait.

Is human caused global warming a potenial disaster for the earth and humankind?

Is the earth large or small?

is the earth's climate  fragile or stable?

Is the earth overpopulated or underpopulated?

Is the number of potential workers and donors for projects like a lunar space elevator and solar sunshield large or small?

Is there any hope humanity could build something in a couple decades to reduce  global warming?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Wow...okay. You didn't really process a single word I wrote, did you? You post yet another link without a single productive comment as if you've made some irrefutable argument. 

 The problem with the whole field is that it has lost credibility.  The figures are tainted by falsifying data.  People complain about the Koch Brothers on the right, well, you have people like Tom Steyer on the left who poised to make BIG $$$ by finacially backing it.  I don't buy the figures presented by the people in the science.  That simple. 

Many decades ago my friends would argue about global warming. One guy was a Libertarian. Another a 'Crat. Then a mix of 'Pubs.

They would all go at it about global warming. The right is ignoring the data. The left is hyping the data. There I was in the middle listening when one of them stopped and said that I was being too quiet. Why didn't I have any thing to say.

My reply was then and still is now that while there is a global warming trend who is to say that it is humans. Sure there seems to be circumstancial evidence pointing to us, but it isn't overwhelming. 

Down here in Florida when I was a wee lad, we had a cold spell (a week worth of cold) it was freezing. We had an orchid of citrus and we would turn on the sprinklers to prevent the pipes from bursting and also save the oranges from being ruined. I'd wake up and the 2.5 acres of my parents property would be a winter wonderland of ice. Giant oak trees would be lowering their branches down to the ground because of the weight of the ice. We would go ice skating on the sidewalk because the water would backup and freeze over with 2-3 inches of ice. The ice would last for a few days slowly melting during the day and then forming again because we would have 32 and below temperatures all week long. Today that never happens.

There was a freeze in 1832 which froze parts of the St John's river which has never happened since. In 1894 there was a freeze so bad that Key West had frost the morning after; which has never happened again. In 1983, 85 and 89 we had freezes so bad that entire counties in central Florida had no oranges. The freeze in 1989 was when I was stationed at Camp LeJune and I was lucky enough to get out in time before the blizzard hit. It was the first time since Camp LeJeune opened that they had to close it because of bad weather.

Since 1989 we haven't had a freeze which did any damage or stayed long. In a few days it is supposed to get to 32 here but that is the first time in years that we have experienced a freeze but it also only happens right before the sun comes up rather than drop to 32 before midnight.

So are humans to blame? No. I don't believe so, but there is a warming trend happening and will have a dramatic impact on the world over the next twenty years.