Yet another article on global warming

[James]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Ball sacks on my face make me wet.

Suck me, beautiful. You're about as intellectually compelling as a wet turd.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by YourMom

More CO2 and as a result of that warmth means more trees and algae. Nature will protect us from the global warming. I find the mere thought that mankind somehow can control nature worldwide rather arrogant. Exception being nuking the world into oblivion.

Im almost stunned by the level of stupidity in this statement. So let me get this right. Relying on "mother nature" itself will protect us isnt arrogant. But using science and observation to establish how we are fucking up the world is?

[Geaux]

Originally Posted by Millie

Whether you want to be "skeptical" about global warming or not, you can apply a fairly reasonable version of Pascal's Wager to the situation:

a) Either global warming is happening or it isn't

b) If it is happening, doing nothing results in devastation and catastrophe

c) If it is happening, doing something about it avoids devastation and catastrophe, reduces dependency on foreign energy, and cleans up the environment

d) If it is not happening, doing nothing does nothing

e) If it is not happening, doing something results in -- at the very least -- a cleaner environment and reduced dependency on foreign energy

Given the choices, the most logical course of action is to do something about carbon emissions and fossil fuel use. There are tangible external benefits to reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuel reliance even if global warming turns out to be overblown -- whereas, if global warming turns out to be the threat people say it is, inaction would result in disaster.

there is no real negative in believing in God. theres potentially huge negativities in going green.

[Snugglebear]

Fuck you people are stupid.

Scientists who actually do the research will tell you that global warming is a reality.

Scientists paid by the oil & gas lobby to review research (not do research, just review it and give an opinion) are shitting out this ridiculous contrarian mythology. They are using science's own principle of uncertainty (nothing can be said with absolute certainty) to make you think there is a legitimate opposition theory out there. Creationists use this same strategy to set up "Intelligent Design" as a theory of equal weight to evolution.

But you know what? Fuck conservation. We simply cannot conserve our way out of this mess. Turning off the water when you brush your teeth won't do shit. We have to invent our way out. And that will take some hardcore government incentives and the creation of markets.

Apart from warming the climate, CO2 is also an acid, and there is evidence that the ocean (a massive carbon sink) is acidifying, to the detriment of many marine invertebrates that make up the base of the food chain.

[Geaux]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear

Scientists paid by the oil & gas lobby to review research (not do research, just review it and give an opinion) are shitting out this ridiculous contrarian mythology.

must be nice to be able to scream this everytime someone dissents right.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Geaux

there is no real negative in believing in God. theres potentially huge negativities in going green.

There are no long-term negatives in going green, only short-term (minimal) discomfort and short-term challenges to heavy-polluting industries. The free market, however, should adapt admirably to those challenges and, in the end, produce even better, stronger, and less wasteful businesses. This is already happening in many cases.

[Regime]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Did I say anything was wrong with it? My point is that it is profitable. It isn't like there's this overwhelming number of philanthropists who all of a sudden want to stop this global warming menace. They want to make money from it. My other point is that there is a huge motivation to not let it be discredited.

/facepalm

You really live up to your fucking name.

[Smocca]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Maybe because we're spending taxpayer dollars on it. Maybe.

Okay well then NASA better not launch any more rockets cause I can guarantee not nearly as many people understand the physics and mathematics of that as global warming. We better not build any large bridges cause I guarantee most people don't understand the mathematics there either. We do ignore economists pretty regularly so we're doing fine in that category at least.

I mean what you are basically saying is that the average tax payer has to understand the science behind any government program. Its absurd and obviously you know this.

Again I ask why you can rely on scientists to provide for you in areas you don't understand in 99% of all fields, but when it comes to global warming you cry foul. I really don't get how you think being obtuse and willfully ignorant on this subject is in your own best interest.

---

Oh wait I just had an epiphany. Every single major scientific organization in the world, the majority of politicians (left and right) and most educated people in general are ALL part of a vast conspiracy to milk a few bucks from tax payers (even though the majority of these people won't see any of that money). Its all so clear now. I totally understand your side of the argument. Wow what a fool I have been.

[Pharazon]

Capitalism is going to turn us green more quickly than government regulations ever could. The price of oil isn't going to stop going up because the demand for it in China, India and elsewhere is going to keep going up. The US essentially has a shrinking supply of oil. But it is so dependant on the transportation systems that the oil keeps running, the people will do whatever they have to to survive without oil if necessary. There's a ton of money to be made off it, so innovation and competition should lead to cheap electric cars in the very near future. There are a few new electric cars coming to market within the next year or so, but within five years they should become relatively common and the prices will go down.

This green capitalism is already driving two major technologies: batteries and solar. There have been some major breakthroughs in battery technology recently, and historically the lack of decent batteries was one of the main reasons why electric cars never took off sooner. There will be continual improvement in battery technology as more money is funneled into them with the automotive industry becoming more and more dependant on them.

And solar- solar companies have been popping up all over Silicon Valley, trying to find that major breakthrough that will make the solar investment truly cost-effective for the average joe. Solar efficiency, cost, and weight will all be improved to the point where you'll see it everywhere you go. The computer industry was started here, the whole business of the internet has its roots here, and its very possible, even probable that solar will be that next big thing. There is a serious competition between these companies right now to become the Cisco / Google of solar. It seems logical to me that at some point every roof and cartop will have solar on it.

So whats my point? Capitalism is going to get us green more quickly than government can do much at all to "stop global warming." And it will happen long before we have a chance to wreck the climate beyond repair. Fossil fuels were cheaper in the short term, ie the first couple hundred years that we needed those sources for power. Green energy will be more cost effective in the long term and the changeover is happening now. And its not happening because of global warming fears.

PS. - Comparing something like physics to climatology is ludicrous. Ask a phycisist about the position of some celestial body a million years from now and they could tell you. Ask a climatologist what the weather will be like 3 weeks from now and they couldn't tell you. There are just so many variables involved in climate that we don't understand, its largely a guessing game.

[Eomer]

argh, climate and weather are not the same fucking thing. Climatologists can't tell you what the weather will be like in a day, week, year, or century. That's meteorology.

Originally Posted by Geaux

must be nice to be able to scream this everytime someone dissents right.

Name a single peer reviewed study or article that disputes current climate change theory. Hint: there isn't any. There's millions, hell billions, of dollars out there for the first scientist to give energy companies the evidence they'd so dearly love to have that refutes climate change theory. No one's managed to collect. I wonder why?

But oh right, you're a unique snowflake and fighting the man and taking the power back and using independent thought by ignoring the overwhelming cacophony of scientific research that clearly shows climate change is real, and humans are at least partially responsible. Good for you.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear

Creationists use this same strategy to set up "Intelligent Design" as a theory of equal weight to evolution.

Creationists and Global Warming Deniers are the exact same demographic: White, Rural (often Southern) Fundamentalist Christian Republicans,

[James]

It's not a political thread until Voodoochile makes his appearance to spew forth blanket Republican vitriol while shooting blue dicks out of his ears and licking blue asshole every chance he gets. I bet your girlfriend is a donkey. Don't lie. A male donkey.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Regime

Exactly what in the fuck is wrong about about "going green."?

Just as an example, ethanol. Using a food source for fuel, and using more energy to produce the shit than it actually provides.

"Going green" is not necessarily a good thing in all cases. Ideally common sense should factor in at some point.

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by Millie

Whether you want to be "skeptical" about global warming or not, you can apply a fairly reasonable version of Pascal's Wager to the situation:

a) Either global warming is happening or it isn't

b) If it is happening, doing nothing results in devastation and catastrophe

c) If it is happening, doing something about it avoids devastation and catastrophe, reduces dependency on foreign energy, and cleans up the environment

d) If it is not happening, doing nothing does nothing

e) If it is not happening, doing something results in -- at the very least -- a cleaner environment and reduced dependency on foreign energy

Given the choices, the most logical course of action is to do something about carbon emissions and fossil fuel use. There are tangible external benefits to reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuel reliance even if global warming turns out to be overblown -- whereas, if global warming turns out to be the threat people say it is, inaction would result in disaster.

This is absolutly correct, I just don't like the scaremongering associated with it. The world is not going to end because of this, it's just a natural process as the world has been covered in both water and ice in the past. We do need to lower our impact on the environment regardless of what is happening though.

[tikkus]

Originally Posted by James

It's not a political thread until Voodoochile makes his appearance to spew forth blanket Republican vitriol while shooting blue dicks out of his ears and licking blue asshole every chance he gets. I bet your girlfriend is a donkey. Don't lie. A male donkey.

Man, I almost forgot about that guy. He's been on ignore for like a year. Oh well, I'll contribute:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

WE'RE ALL GOING TO MELT