Panel of the world’s leading climate scientists comes to conclusion that, with 95% certainty, most o
72 replies, posted
the problem is
fuck i don't know at this point, the U.N. can say its happening, 99% of climate scientists can say it, hell we even have witnessed the beginnings of global warming throughout the barrier islands, and with the very unusual weather patterns that have been affecting things, but there are too many stupid people in power and they see global warming not as a problem against mankind but as another liberal ploy to try to emasculate their great country of [insert name here]. if anything this recent syria problem has shown is that the U.N. has become a giant dickwaving forum, where nobody can get anything done.
[QUOTE=tr00per7;42329651]Or you know, DECREASE THE FUCKING POPULATION!
[/QUOTE]
Wealthy Republicans will start supporting genocide in Africa.
or be like, "dah end times, gotta hoard money" and die leaving us with all of their problems.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42330705]That's barely a fraction of the problem/s
The batteries in those things are really nasty and need to be disposed of carefully. You also need to factor in how electricity is created for those cars. Coal burning? Using uranium (another finite resource) in Nuclear Plants?
Until supercapacitors are easy and cheap to make and dispose of, and until better clean energy solutions come around electric cars won't solve dick.[/QUOTE]
Even if the power you charge your EV with comes from coal, it will still be cleaner than using a gas car. However, cars are a very small part of the problem and replacing every car with an EV by tomorrow would hardly make a dent in the CO2 emissions.
If the United States turned on enough Fusion reactors to get rid of every other source of power and gave everyone an Electric Car to drive, we would still not be in the clear because global climate change is a [I][B]global[/B][/I] problem. We need to get China on board with anything if we hope to even have an impact on curb global emissions.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2011_emissions_estimates[/url]
Everyone's got to do their part.
If in future anyone tells me that Global Warming is going to kill us. I will reassuringly tell them that Global Warming won't do a single thing to us, we did it to ourselves by being so fucking stupid.
Not so much stupid, more like ignorant of the effects of what we were doing. The stupidity comes sometime after the industrial revolution when we [I]knew[/I] what we were doing had negative effects, but didn't bother to do anything about it.
One problem I've noticed is there's very little effort to educate those people about why this is bad. Say what you will about people that don't "believe" in climate change, but those are exactly the people we need to spend the most time talking about it with. That's why it's called education and communication. Preaching to the choir does nothing. We need more scientists willing to stick their neck out and go on Fox News, go see O'Reilly, inform the people that are propagating the misinformation.
[editline]27th September 2013[/editline]
I mean shit do it if you have to spam the broadcaster with emails, tweets, whatever. If they don't invite you that's their problem but at least make an effort to have a chat with the people that don't know.
[QUOTE=OvB;42330842]Not so much stupid, more like ignorant of the effects of what we were doing. The stupidity comes sometime after the industrial revolution when we [I]knew[/I] what we were doing had negative effects, but didn't bother to do anything about it.
One problem I've noticed is there's very little effort to educate those people about why this is bad. Say what you will about people that don't "believe" in climate change, but those are exactly the people we need to spend the most time talking about it with. That's why it's called education and communication. Preaching to the choir does nothing. We need more scientists willing to stick their neck out and go on Fox News, go see O'Reilly, inform the people that are propagating the misinformation.
[editline]27th September 2013[/editline]
I mean shit do it if you have to spam the broadcaster with emails, tweets, whatever. If they don't invite you that's their problem but at least make an effort to have a chat with the people that don't know.[/QUOTE]
fox news generally doesn't invite knowledgeable guests. they invite guests that aren't as smart as the pundit(so that they can win the "debate"), or someone with high fame that the viewers will already have an opinion on, generally a negative opinion.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42330890]fox news generally doesn't invite knowledgeable guests. they invite guests that aren't as smart as the pundit(so that they can win the "debate"), or someone with high fame that the viewers will already have an opinion on, generally a negative opinion.[/QUOTE]
That is an issue, yes. Still think there needs to be a stronger effort to get your voice out to people that don't know the issue well.
[QUOTE=OvB;42330943]That is an issue, yes. Still think there needs to be a stronger effort to get your voice out to people that don't know the issue well.[/QUOTE]
well i put this story on my facebook, what more can i do besides actually talk to the people i know about it?
[QUOTE=Banned?;42330661]Wow, and I thought the most ignorant thing I read today would be legolover122 in the steam controller thread.[/QUOTE]
You underestimate the number of people in this country whose primary source of news and information is the 8 hours of Rush Limbaugh on the radio at work every day.
It doesn't support what the denialists think, therefore it's part of the conspiracy.
so many issues, so much apathy, too much information, too busy to do anything.
Pressured to death with other sources and problems and information, I don't think anyone is going to do anything about anything until it either 1. benefits political reputation and acquires money/power/resources, or 2. it actually effects them in some way immediate.
The day all of the world ends up as smoggy as shanghai and new york is flooded in a tsunami is the day anyone decides to do anything worthwhile, as in: actually reforming society into a structure that will ensure sustainable civilization. I hope to god apathy and ignorance of threats simply due to the blinding amount of information and personal worries in the world today won't doom the entire human race.
Welp, there's nothing good I can say about this.
[sp]Someone please prove me wrong... [/sp]
Climate change being man-made may be undeniable at this point, but why is it that climate change is the only subject on this forum where quoting experts in the field is seen as a legitimate argument instead of an appeal to authority? The research should stand on its own.
It's funny that I read this today, because last night on CBS they ran a story about how arctic ice isn't melting and that the "evidence" shows that no warming is taking place at all.
If you want to understand why there are so many climate skeptics out there, then look no further than media idiocy. Stuff like the Daily Mail, FOX, etc., make big news of misinterpreted scientific findings or outright lies about the climate, and completely ignore the current body of evidence on the subject, and keep giving people reason to spout those old and tired arguments against global warming.
Isn't the carbon emissions of humans about 3%? I mean in the 70% we were looking at facing an "ice age" also wasn't this one of the more cooler summers in the past 10 years?
[QUOTE=catbarf;42331293]Climate change being man-made may be undeniable at this point, but why is it that climate change is the only subject on this forum where quoting experts in the field is seen as a legitimate argument instead of an appeal to authority? The research should stand on its own.[/QUOTE]
because somehow in the 90s, hippies from the 70s managed to turn enviromentalism into libralism, and republicans feel like its some sort of 40 year trick by the democratic party to relieve us of our 'merciansm.
honestly the only way for political response to happen is if something undeniably caused by global warming were to happen and may people would die. arther c clark's rendezvous with ramas is a great example of how poorly we are at prevention, the first 20 pages are about how a sizable rock landed in the med and killed millions of people, suddenly we poured money into research and programs to destroy future rocks, which lead to a massive amount of space exploration. this has been sort of the response to the russian incident that happened a while ago, it'll be the same thing when something global warming caused does strike, like say a tsunami caused by melting antartic ice.
[editline]27th September 2013[/editline]
i mean its sad but we have politicians who's only elected duty is to try to dismantle the EPA and cockblock any innovation in clean energy, while on the other end of the spectrum we have politicians who call for clean energy, and no pollution but raise hell when nuclear is even discussed as an option and bend to every lobbiest with a check.
[QUOTE=El Dilbert;42331350]Isn't the carbon emissions of humans about 3%? I mean in the 70% we were looking at facing an "ice age" also wasn't this one of the more cooler summers in the past 10 years?[/QUOTE]
this is not how global warming works
do you think environmental scientists think that the earth will literally just turn into magma when we burn some oil
I want to see the study done with a 99% confidence level.
[QUOTE=EskillV2;42329517]Something i remember an old man say where i work last year.
"Global warming is just government hogwash"
then it started to snow in July. :v:[/QUOTE]
That shit happens here, everyone says it's bullshit. Last year was bone fucking dry, hardly ever rained, had a dry winter too, then it snowed in May of this year.
[QUOTE=popbob;42329909]Anyone can be paid to lie.[/QUOTE]Yeah sure, tens of thousands of scientists were all bribed to promote a scientific theory that is disastrously economically detrimental to absolutely vast business interests.
How comfortable is it to have your head up your arse? I'd imagine it's quite snug.
[QUOTE=popbob;42329909]Anyone can be paid to lie.[/QUOTE]
OH NO, WE STOPPED USING FOSSIL FUELS AND SWITCHED TO MORE SUSTAINABLE, RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY, TRULY THIS IS A SIGN OF THE END TIMES, THOSE WINDMILLS ARE HARBINGERS OF HUMANITIES DEMISE!
[QUOTE=tr00per7;42329651]Or you know, DECREASE THE FUCKING POPULATION!
So I say, Get rid of the hospital, Give us the Colosseum![/QUOTE]Many countries have more people dying than being born (immigration still increases the population count though)
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;42331022]It doesn't support what the denialists think, therefore it's part of the conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
in a "debate" that i had with a denialist, they linked me to [url=http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/]this source[/url] for evidence in response to me asking them for multiple peer-evaluated research papers as i had provided to him, and after doing some research [sp]looking at the URL and then noticing that the author of the article had also written several other articles which were majorly pro-oil[/sp] concluding that it was indeed not peer evaluated, he not only had the audacity to tell me that "Of course you wouldn't find it acceptable, it doesn't agree with your viewpoint" he also told me that all of those scientists had been paid off or were in it for the money.
i do not fucking get how these people still exist
[QUOTE=bravehat;42332777]OH NO, WE STOPPED USING FOSSIL FUELS AND SWITCHED TO MORE SUSTAINABLE, RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY, TRULY THIS IS A SIGN OF THE END TIMES, THOSE WINDMILLS ARE HARBINGERS OF HUMANITIES DEMISE![/QUOTE]Why the fuck did I read this in Ralof's voice?
But seriously, the problem with trying to talk this out with deniers is that there's a big difference between being misinformed, and willful ignorance of the subject.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;42333072]Why the fuck did I read this in Ralof's voice?
But seriously, the problem with trying to talk this out with deniers is that there's a big difference between being misinformed, and willful ignorance of the subject.[/QUOTE]
There's no point at all in discussing it any more, really there's not, it's already been debated by people far more intelligent and knowledgable in the field than your average man on the street and at the end of the day even if we managed to convince the world populace of how real it is it wouldn't change a thing because most governements are slaves to the assholes waving around massive cheques so they can keep drilling for oil.
Holy shit we are literally the most retarded species imaginable, we are fully aware that we are probably gonna cause our own extinction in the next few hundred years through cataclysmic climate shifts and we're so busy chasing green paper and imaginary power that we're just gonna let it fucking happen.
These people have dug themselves a huge hole and the only way out is to scare the shit out of everyone and blame everything on CO2. They've made the predictions and instead of correcting their mistake they've come out with an "average" so now they don't even need to tell people how much warming we can expect. Win win situation. The subsidie gravy train continues to flow and they keep their jobs.
Don't worry kids, the earth won't turn into Mars in 100 years. Like all religious texts, most of the IPCC language can be interpreted differently at different times and by different people.
By the way, did anyone pay attention to that "97% of scientists agree" claptrap? Turns out under examination their methodology was quite dishonest, only 0.3% of the literature supports their extreme view that humans are solely responsible. What the religious believers don't seem to understand is that most "deniers" don't deny humans have an impact on environment and would be in the "97%", the dispute comes about when discussing primarily co2 sensitivity. How much of an affect is it really having? The computer models the IPCC use can be very sensitive - meaning using different data can give a different outcome. Skepticism is needed, not blind support just because of their position. This organization is not transparent like they claim to be.
[QUOTE]“…all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life.”[/QUOTE]
OK, you’ve convinced me: you are completely nuts.
You assert that the [url=ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot.png]Antarctic[/url] is heating up? [url=http://www.climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201207%20versus%201998-2006%201200km.gif]As if[/url]. You can’t come here spouting [url=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png]easily disproved[/url] nonsense that you get from your alarmist propaganda blogs. Here, it’s put up or shut up. And so far you haven’t put up anything but baseless assertions, misinformation, and pal-reviewed papers. All of them are flatly [url=http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01347fb69bbf970c-pi]contradicted[/url] by empirical [real world] [url=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png]evidence[/url].
Run anlong now back to whatever blog you get your [url=http://www.geologytimes.com/Images/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg]flat wrong[/url] talking points from. The ones you’re posting here have been [url=http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png]deconstructed[/url] too many times.
Mind if I ask where you got that quite from? I can't find it anywhere in this thread.
also, why is it that all the denialists just joined? I miss the old days of elitism and spamming the get out frog.
[QUOTE=gandalfgrey;42338590]They've made the predictions and instead of correcting their mistake they've come out with an "average" so now they don't even need to tell people how much warming we can expect. Win win situation. [/quote]
Oh no, science works with [I]averages[/I]! That's [I]cheating[/I].
[quote]Don't worry kids, the earth won't turn into Mars in 100 years.[/quote]
I don't think anyone has said that.
[quote]their extreme view that humans are solely responsible.[/quote]
I don't think anyone has said that.
[quote]OK, you’ve convinced me: you are completely nuts.[/quote]
I don't think anyone has said that.
[quote]You assert that the [url=ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot.png]Antarctic[/url] is heating up? [url=http://www.climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201207%20versus%201998-2006%201200km.gif]As if[/url].[/quote]
From the exact same source, dipshit: [url=http://www.climate4you.com/images/ANTARCTIC%20Temp%20201308%20versus%201998-2006%201200km.gif]here[/url].
[quote] You can’t come here spouting [url=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png]easily disproved[/url] nonsense that you get from your alarmist propaganda blogs. Here, it’s put up or shut up. And so far you haven’t put up anything but baseless assertions, misinformation, and pal-reviewed papers. All of them are flatly [url=http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01347fb69bbf970c-pi]contradicted[/url] by empirical [real world] [url=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png]evidence[/url].
Run anlong now back to whatever blog you get your [url=http://www.geologytimes.com/Images/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg]flat wrong[/url] talking points from. The ones you’re posting here have been [url=http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png]deconstructed[/url] too many times.[/QUOTE]
You do know that sea ice melts and grows each year, right? Most people are much more worried about glacial ice than sea ice.
Oh yeah, and did you know? Water with lower salt levels freezes at higher temperatures than saltier water. I wonder how seawater could get lower salt levels... hmm... [I]definitely[/I] not from melted glacial ice, nope.
Also, again, from your own sources:
[quote]NSIDC scientists said this year’s higher extent is a temporary reprieve for the sea ice. “While this is a very welcome recovery from last year’s record low, the overall trend is still decidedly downwards,” said NSIDC director Mark Serreze.
“The pattern we’ve seen so far is an overall downward trend in summer ice extent, punctuated by ups and downs due to natural variability in weather patterns and ocean conditions,” Serreze said. “We could be looking at summers with essentially no sea ice on the Arctic Ocean only a few decades from now.”[/quote]
[url=http://nsidc.org/news/press/2013_arcticseaiceminimum_PR.html]Source[/url]
And weren't you talking down to us for supposedly getting our sources from blogs? Hmm, I wonder what [url=/c3headlines.typepad.com]this[/url] is...
Please go back to Middle Earth, Gandalf. We're talking about planet Earth in here.
Like I said earlier in the thread, there's no point debating with denialists, they're fucking willfully retarded, just leave them to wallow in their own stupidity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.