I used to teach in the United States and during one of the discussions about global warming, quite a few students were arguing with me that it didn't exist. I was pretty flabbergasted (it was my first year of teaching, so I really didn't know what to say, except these are the facts and make due with what you see/hear). I brought it up with some friends at a pub and probably the same percentage (30%) felt that it was not as serious as liberals made it out to be.
Since then, I've moved to Asia and I asked a similar question in the form of an essay (Earth Day was last week). I've asked each classroom, each student.. not a single dissenter (I do know that students tend to be much less outspoken, however). I hung out with some international students and they felt the same and felt that their countries also knew it "existed".
I haven't been in the United State for about five or six years and I wanted to know if this mentality still exists in the media, with politicians, and with other Americans in the US. If so, why is the United States, with some of the best schools in the world, still not realize how detrimental global warming is?
Refer to South Park for my thoughts on global warming:
Chet - Redneck: How about we cause more global warming? So that in the future the polar ice caps melt; and it ushers in a new ice age. Pissed off Redneck: How the hell is global warming going to cause an ice age? Chet - Redneck: Well you know, the global warming could be on a climate shift or something. Pissed off Redneck: Chet, you are a ******* ****** you know that? Even IF global warming were real, which all proven scientific data shows it isn't, it would take millions of years for a climate shift to happen. You think an ice age can just happen all a sudden like? Chet - Redneck: Well I was just trying to be helpful. Pissed off Redneck: Well help yourself to a ****** science book, cause you're talking like a ****** ******.
Since most of the companies causing (in theory) man made global warming are the biggest in the world there has been a massive push by them to drum up counter-arguments.
There is no doubt it is a problem for us.
Where there is a doubt if it is actually happening (probably is) and more controvertially whether it is caused by man. I'm leaning toward no, but we still absoultely have to prepare for it or face serious problems. Since there are very few negative effects with "going green" we should prioritize it regardless of whether global warming is happening or a threat to out existence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
I used to teach in the United States and during one of the discussions about global warming, quite a few students were arguing with me that it didn't exist. I was pretty flabbergasted (it was my first year of teaching, so I really didn't know what to say, except these are the facts and make due with what you see/hear). I brought it up with some friends at a pub and probably the same percentage (30%) felt that it was not as serious as liberals made it out to be.
Since then, I've moved to Asia and I asked a similar question in the form of an essay (Earth Day was last week). I've asked each classroom, each student.. not a single dissenter (I do know that students tend to be much less outspoken, however). I hung out with some international students and they felt the same and felt that their countries also knew it "existed".
I haven't been in the United State for about five or six years and I wanted to know if this mentality still exists in the media, with politicians, and with other Americans in the US. If so, why is the United States, with some of the best schools in the world, still not realize how detrimental global warming is?
I've said it before on these forums but I will say it again. The United States is completely backwards compared to most of the rest of the world when it comes to global warming. I have worked in multiple research groups dealing with alternative energy and energy storage. In my conversations with some scientists who have traveled the world talking energy policy with scientists from other countries, they have told me how stark a difference there is in the tone of the conversation.
In the US, we still have to deal with the massive amount of misinformation and public ignorance that has led many to not believe in AGW. Thus the conversation is still about "how do we convince the public/policy makers that this is a real threat?"
In other countries their scientists have been allowed to move past this phase and are now focused on coming up with solutions.
Like most other issues in this country, AGW is now a sharply partisan issue. The right wing represents the denialist, anti-science camp as usual while liberals are much more likely to acknowledge AGW as a real threat. Sorry, call me anything you want but I don't care how disparaging I am anymore on this issue; that is just the way it is.
Every now and then I will turn on Fox News or Limbaugh for a few seconds to see how long I can take it, and the other day in the 20 seconds that I listened to, Limbaugh was talking about how proud he was that from day 1 he has been exposing global warming as a conspiracy by liberals wanting to take over our lives. This is what we are up against folks. Denialism is based on dogma and misinformation, plain and simple.
I've never understood why this is so heavily attacked.
In order to stop global warming, lets reduce pollution and make more efficient energy.
How is that bad? Making a cleaner Earth is bad? The argument against it is purely economically based. It costs a ton to keep emissions low, so companies go against it.
The problem with global warming, and belief in global warming, is that since 1900...we have varied within a 0.4 degree Celsius (0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) range. And, as historical records show, variance within a 0.4 degree Celsius range is rather insignificant - the world has varied itself greater than that long before we were burning fossil fuels.
Right now, we are at about +0.0375 degrees Celsius from the baseline (which seems to be based off the Medieval Warm Period). Right around 1575, you can see we actually dropped to about -0.09 degrees Celsius - the "Little Ice Age." And immediately following the Medieval Warm Period, we dropped to -0.08.
You'll have to forgive me, and others, for not going into panic mode over the world dying when the world has only warmed (at most) 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 112 years. For the record, that is an average increase of 0.006428571 degrees Fahrenheit a year.
Is global warming something we should be concerned with? Most definitely.
Is global warming the end of the world many Liberals make it out to be? Definitely not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
The problem with global warming, and belief in global warming, is that since 1900...we have varied within a 0.4 degree Celsius (0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) range. And, as historical records show, variance within a 0.4 degree Celsius range is rather insignificant - the world has varied itself greater than that long before we were burning fossil fuels.
Right now, we are at about +0.0375 degrees Celsius from the baseline (which seems to be based off the Medieval Warm Period). Right around 1575, you can see we actually dropped to about -0.09 degrees Celsius - the "Little Ice Age." And immediately following the Medieval Warm Period, we dropped to -0.08.
You'll have to forgive me, and others, for not going into panic mode over the world dying when the world has only warmed (at most) 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 112 years. For the record, that is an average increase of 0.006428571 degrees Fahrenheit a year.
Is global warming something we should be concerned with? Most definitely.
Is global warming the end of the world many Liberals make it out to be? Definitely not.
Perfect example of what I am talking about. Is this the kind of reasoning used in climate science? No. Can anyone with an internet connection grab a graph off of wikipedia make a simplistic interpretation of a field they are not qualified in and come up with an argument that goes against what modern climate science tells us? Well, we just witnessed it.
Perfect example of what I am talking about. Is this the kind of reasoning used in climate science? No. Can anyone with an internet connection grab a graph off of wikipedia make a simplistic interpretation of a field they are not qualified in and come up with an argument that goes against what modern climate science tells us? Well, we just witnessed it.
Graphs like that were designed by scientists to make the information understandable by non-scientists.
We went from a 0.0 degree Celsius baseline following the Medieval Warm Period, to a -0.9 degree Celsius below baseline during the Little Ice Age to a current ~+0.4 degree Celsius above baseline right now.
You know what that tells me?
That the Earth's temperature is a cycle that keeps on going. Up and down, up and down.
So tell me Logic...what school did you get your climate science degree from?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Graphs like that were designed by scientists to make the information understandable by non-scientists.
We went from a 0.0 degree Celsius baseline following the Medieval Warm Period, to a -0.9 degree Celsius below baseline during the Little Ice Age to a current ~+0.4 degree Celsius above baseline right now.
You know what that tells me?
That the Earth's temperature is a cycle that keeps on going. Up and down, up and down.
Sorry if I don't hold your interpretation of climatology in very high esteem.
So tell me Logic...what school did you get your climate science degree from?
The difference is that my views on AGW are backed up by the vast majority of people who do have climate science degrees.
EDIT: Also, notice that I have given up on actually responding to specific scientific arguments.
Sorry if I don't hold your interpretation of climatology in very high esteem.
The difference is that my views on AGW are backed up by the vast majority of people who do have climate science degrees.
EDIT: Also, notice that I have given up on actually responding to specific scientific arguments.
So even though you willingly acknowledge having no working knowledge of the issue at hand, somehow your opinion is better than mine because your opinion coincides with the opinions of those who are paid (via grants) to say global warming is a major concern and my opinions coincide with those who look back at historical temperatures 1000+ years ago and say that it is a cycle?
You know what they say about opinions, don't you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
2. Cmon Solar, you've already learned this <edit: section of the> forum is full of greenies and liberals who are gonna outnumber you, push you into a corner on this topic and chew you up. Its not worth your efforts.
3. Bring it on baby; ~4 snows all winter in NE ohio! Like some kind of miracle. Keep it up!
So even though you willingly acknowledge having no working knowledge of the issue at hand
Oh I have knowledge of the issue. But just look at how much effort it takes at realclimate.org from real climate scientists to disprove denialist claims. The advantage that your side has is that these are complex scientific issues that are difficult to explain to scientifically illiterate people, or explain in a few paragraphs in the news or on some forums.
I like to draw an analogy to the evolution "debate". It's a lot easier to say "WELL THEN HOW DID THE EYE EVOLVE?" than type up a couple hundred page PhD level dissertation explaining how the eye evolved. Likewise it is a lot easier for a layman to say "THEN WHY DOES THIS GRAPH LOOK LIKE THIS?" than actually go through and explain the field of climate science.
somehow your opinion is better than mine because your opinion coincides with the opinions....to say global warming is a major concern and my opinions coincide with those who look back at historical temperatures 1000+ years ago and say that it is a cycle?
So in other words, my opinion is better on this scientific issue because it coincides with the majority of scientists, while yours coincides with laymen who say "THEN WHY DOES THIS GRAPH LOOK LIKE THIS?"
Sounds about right, yeah.
of those who are paid (via grants)
You know who else is paid via grants? The Illuminati. And Hitler.
You know what they say about opinions, don't you?
That those based on firmly established scientific theories are much better than those of people who have no clue what they are talking about?
Can we please keep this civil? My inbox is filling up with reported posts and I don't like that. You can disagree without insulting people, personalizing the issue, or baiting hostile responses. Enjoy the discussion.
I'll hop with Solaran_X here....which is weird...anyway, there's no evidence of any significant global warming threat currently occurring, though there are some alarm bells going on that are hard to ignore. Such as the significant amount of warm years we've had in the past 15 years. Whether that pans out, is anyone's guess.
I just think there is little harm in "living green" as it seems....good for everyone?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
I look at it this way. In the past 1012 years (give or take a year or two), this world's temperature has fluctuated within a 1.3 degree Celsius (2.34 degrees Fahrenheit) range, from a -0.09 degrees Celsius (1.62 degrees Fahrenheit) below baseline (set by the Medieval Warm Period) to a current ~+0.04 degrees Celsius (.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above baseline.
Sure, we could definitely take better care of the planet. No doubt about it. And we should. But is a variety of average annual temperatures within a range of 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit between the lowest point in the past 1012 years and the highest point in the past 1012 years cause for global alarm?
Not really. And I think a lot of people agree with that when you put it into terms they can understand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
1) You can't develop alternative (or God forbid alternative and free) energy sources, because people who have a monopoly in the oil industry don't wanna go bankrupt. Just look up all the research or work being destroyed by SWAT teams. Nikola Tesla was supported by JP Morgan, but when Tesla wanted to give free energy to the people, the **** hit the fan and everything was destroyed and money taken away from him.
2) Global warming - Big companies first of all care for profit. They don't care if they poison the water/air/earth. If it's profitable, they don't care. So why are they guilt tripping us all of a sudden? It's not like yesterday I released millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, possibly upsetting the natural environment for marine life.
3) Carbon taxes/Global Green Fascism - Rotschild owned bank set up to take your money. How is that going to solve anything? Taxing us to death? If they could, they'd even patent air and tax us for breathing. There's nothing these control freaks won't do.
We don't have a say in the development of this issue, because people at the top don't listen to us.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
God listens ... TO SLAYER!!!!!
Originally posted by mondu_the_fat: One minute you're arguing about meatlof and the next thing you know someone's sex life is being dredged up.
My playgroup: four people total.
We use the Legacy B&R list.
My meta consists of combo, control and some aggro / midrange decks.
My group uses proxies, so budget is not an issue. Because of this, things can get out of hand.
The reason is ideological: many people do not want Global Warming to be right because it doesn't fit their ideology and world view. To them, mankind's actions can't significantly affect the environment as this opens the door for government interventions and a disruption of their lifestyle.
Have you read any of the actions more so from the UN on this? Right now there is a new UN resolution that is basically a massive transfer of wealth from Richer countries to poorer ones. all in the name of GW.
Other government mandates is making it more expensive for people to buy things than before. the new CAFE restrictions here in the US are going to be huge. affordable cars are going to be a thing of the past to meet the new standards. more so if you have a family and need a larger vehicle.
Oftentimes this goes even further to the point of conspiracy theories. Like you, when you talk about climate scientists and their grants.
It is only a conspiracy if it isn't true or a lack of evidence to support it, However the problem is we do have evidence that it is true. There have been several University professors that have been threatened with having their funding pulled if they printed their stance against GW.
If people like al gore actually cared about what they preach they would live the that life. thing is they don't.
also the only people that benefit from this are people that deal in carbon trading which is a huge swindle all on it's own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
As exaggerated as Al Gore's movie was, I think the title explains it all. We have a culture of individualism in the United States. Laissez Faire and free market ideology is rampant, and the facts of Global Warming are an immense challenge to this way of thinking. It's inconvenient to have to radically alter your worldview when new evidence challenges it, and most people would rather deny it and rationalize it away.
Laissez Faire and free market ideology is rampant, and the facts of Global Warming are an immense challenge to this way of thinking. It's inconvenient to have to radically alter your worldview when new evidence challenges it, and most people would rather deny it and rationalize it away.
The two aren't connected. If anything so called "green technology" should be using the system to provide goods and services that people would want at an affordable price.
It doesn't. it trys to bully the market and people into feeling guilty. they are going at it backwards and wondering why people are resisting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The two aren't connected. If anything so called "green technology" should be using the system to provide goods and services that people would want at an affordable price.
It doesn't. it trys to bully the market and people into feeling guilty. they are going at it backwards and wondering why people are resisting.
I must have missed the Nissan Leaf commercial where they say "Buy our product or the world will burn."
First, Let's speak in terms easier to understand the magnitude: Fahrenheit.
The graph you just showed has the Earth cool 33.6 degrees over 850 years, and then heat up 34.4 degrees in 150. That is a clear indication that something is entirely ****ed up there, and it's impossible to deny until you think rate has nothing to do with the matter - which is ignorant on all levels. As a crude analogy you do not die by pressing the brake of your car and going from 60mph to 0mph, but if you jump out of a plane and hit the ground you will die (if survive severely injured).
TL;DR it's not just a factor of magnitude, you have to consider time.
I must have missed the Nissan Leaf commercial where they say "Buy our product or the world will burn."
Have you seen the one that actually proves it's green? I missed that one.
In the end, arguing the how "green is forced into the market" means nothing since green technologies do sell and sell more and more than ever before. The problem is that there's no measure of what makes a green product more sustainable, and the idea of even trying to calculate it is all but impossible for complicated systems (like a vehicle).
Some things are obvious: local goods, reduce use of fuels, etc. But the real story is not to live in excess - which is the true conflict with American sensibilities since even the green folks don't want to give up their luxuries (or find ways to justify them). Moderation is the tough sell in a liberal economy that buys a lot of stuff.
First, Let's speak in terms easier to understand the magnitude: Fahrenheit.
The graph you just showed has the Earth cool 33.6 degrees over 850 years, and then heat up 34.4 degrees in 150. That is a clear indication that something is entirely ****ed up there, and it's impossible to deny until you think rate has nothing to do with the matter - which is ignorant on all levels. As a crude analogy you do not die by pressing the brake of your car and going from 60mph to 0mph, but if you jump out of a plane and hit the ground you will die (if survive severely injured).
TL;DR it's not just a factor of magnitude, you have to consider time.
The way the data is presented is a huge factor as well. If I show you a couple complete cycles of a sine wave (which can be rather representative of a cycling issue like global temperature), you would likely agree that everything looks good. It crosses "0" at three points and has similar peaks to it's positive and negative dips.
Now, if I take that same sine wave and only show you the part where it crosses "0" the second time (going negative) and a short period of time where it crosses "0" the third time (going positive), you would likely conclude that there is something wrong.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong...but your statement seems to be alluding to a swing of a total of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, which is wrong. The total swing was only 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit over 1012 years - not 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since then, I've moved to Asia and I asked a similar question in the form of an essay (Earth Day was last week). I've asked each classroom, each student.. not a single dissenter (I do know that students tend to be much less outspoken, however). I hung out with some international students and they felt the same and felt that their countries also knew it "existed".
I haven't been in the United State for about five or six years and I wanted to know if this mentality still exists in the media, with politicians, and with other Americans in the US. If so, why is the United States, with some of the best schools in the world, still not realize how detrimental global warming is?
I think your reasoning is backwards, most students would agree with you.
Chet - Redneck: How about we cause more global warming? So that in the future the polar ice caps melt; and it ushers in a new ice age.
Pissed off Redneck: How the hell is global warming going to cause an ice age?
Chet - Redneck: Well you know, the global warming could be on a climate shift or something.
Pissed off Redneck: Chet, you are a ******* ****** you know that? Even IF global warming were real, which all proven scientific data shows it isn't, it would take millions of years for a climate shift to happen. You think an ice age can just happen all a sudden like?
Chet - Redneck: Well I was just trying to be helpful.
Pissed off Redneck: Well help yourself to a ****** science book, cause you're talking like a ****** ******.
My Trade List (long dead)
My Sales List (long dead)
">Foil Japanese Death and Taxes! (In progress, needs <10 cards)
There is no doubt it is a problem for us.
Where there is a doubt if it is actually happening (probably is) and more controvertially whether it is caused by man. I'm leaning toward no, but we still absoultely have to prepare for it or face serious problems. Since there are very few negative effects with "going green" we should prioritize it regardless of whether global warming is happening or a threat to out existence.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
I've said it before on these forums but I will say it again. The United States is completely backwards compared to most of the rest of the world when it comes to global warming. I have worked in multiple research groups dealing with alternative energy and energy storage. In my conversations with some scientists who have traveled the world talking energy policy with scientists from other countries, they have told me how stark a difference there is in the tone of the conversation.
In the US, we still have to deal with the massive amount of misinformation and public ignorance that has led many to not believe in AGW. Thus the conversation is still about "how do we convince the public/policy makers that this is a real threat?"
In other countries their scientists have been allowed to move past this phase and are now focused on coming up with solutions.
Like most other issues in this country, AGW is now a sharply partisan issue. The right wing represents the denialist, anti-science camp as usual while liberals are much more likely to acknowledge AGW as a real threat. Sorry, call me anything you want but I don't care how disparaging I am anymore on this issue; that is just the way it is.
Every now and then I will turn on Fox News or Limbaugh for a few seconds to see how long I can take it, and the other day in the 20 seconds that I listened to, Limbaugh was talking about how proud he was that from day 1 he has been exposing global warming as a conspiracy by liberals wanting to take over our lives. This is what we are up against folks. Denialism is based on dogma and misinformation, plain and simple.
In order to stop global warming, lets reduce pollution and make more efficient energy.
How is that bad? Making a cleaner Earth is bad? The argument against it is purely economically based. It costs a ton to keep emissions low, so companies go against it.
That's why I support nuclear energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Right now, we are at about +0.0375 degrees Celsius from the baseline (which seems to be based off the Medieval Warm Period). Right around 1575, you can see we actually dropped to about -0.09 degrees Celsius - the "Little Ice Age." And immediately following the Medieval Warm Period, we dropped to -0.08.
You'll have to forgive me, and others, for not going into panic mode over the world dying when the world has only warmed (at most) 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 112 years. For the record, that is an average increase of 0.006428571 degrees Fahrenheit a year.
Is global warming something we should be concerned with? Most definitely.
Is global warming the end of the world many Liberals make it out to be? Definitely not.
Perfect example of what I am talking about. Is this the kind of reasoning used in climate science? No. Can anyone with an internet connection grab a graph off of wikipedia make a simplistic interpretation of a field they are not qualified in and come up with an argument that goes against what modern climate science tells us? Well, we just witnessed it.
Graphs like that were designed by scientists to make the information understandable by non-scientists.
We went from a 0.0 degree Celsius baseline following the Medieval Warm Period, to a -0.9 degree Celsius below baseline during the Little Ice Age to a current ~+0.4 degree Celsius above baseline right now.
You know what that tells me?
That the Earth's temperature is a cycle that keeps on going. Up and down, up and down.
So tell me Logic...what school did you get your climate science degree from?
Sorry if I don't hold your interpretation of climatology in very high esteem.
The difference is that my views on AGW are backed up by the vast majority of people who do have climate science degrees.
EDIT: Also, notice that I have given up on actually responding to specific scientific arguments.
So even though you willingly acknowledge having no working knowledge of the issue at hand, somehow your opinion is better than mine because your opinion coincides with the opinions of those who are paid (via grants) to say global warming is a major concern and my opinions coincide with those who look back at historical temperatures 1000+ years ago and say that it is a cycle?
You know what they say about opinions, don't you?
2. Cmon Solar, you've already learned this <edit: section of the> forum is full of greenies and liberals who are gonna outnumber you, push you into a corner on this topic and chew you up. Its not worth your efforts.
3. Bring it on baby; ~4 snows all winter in NE ohio! Like some kind of miracle. Keep it up!
My Buying Thread
Oh I have knowledge of the issue. But just look at how much effort it takes at realclimate.org from real climate scientists to disprove denialist claims. The advantage that your side has is that these are complex scientific issues that are difficult to explain to scientifically illiterate people, or explain in a few paragraphs in the news or on some forums.
I like to draw an analogy to the evolution "debate". It's a lot easier to say "WELL THEN HOW DID THE EYE EVOLVE?" than type up a couple hundred page PhD level dissertation explaining how the eye evolved. Likewise it is a lot easier for a layman to say "THEN WHY DOES THIS GRAPH LOOK LIKE THIS?" than actually go through and explain the field of climate science.
So in other words, my opinion is better on this scientific issue because it coincides with the majority of scientists, while yours coincides with laymen who say "THEN WHY DOES THIS GRAPH LOOK LIKE THIS?"
Sounds about right, yeah.
You know who else is paid via grants? The Illuminati. And Hitler.
That those based on firmly established scientific theories are much better than those of people who have no clue what they are talking about?
Can we please keep this civil? My inbox is filling up with reported posts and I don't like that. You can disagree without insulting people, personalizing the issue, or baiting hostile responses. Enjoy the discussion.
Thanks,
Brandon
I just think there is little harm in "living green" as it seems....good for everyone?
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Sure, we could definitely take better care of the planet. No doubt about it. And we should. But is a variety of average annual temperatures within a range of 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit between the lowest point in the past 1012 years and the highest point in the past 1012 years cause for global alarm?
Not really. And I think a lot of people agree with that when you put it into terms they can understand.
1) You can't develop alternative (or God forbid alternative and free) energy sources, because people who have a monopoly in the oil industry don't wanna go bankrupt. Just look up all the research or work being destroyed by SWAT teams. Nikola Tesla was supported by JP Morgan, but when Tesla wanted to give free energy to the people, the **** hit the fan and everything was destroyed and money taken away from him.
2) Global warming - Big companies first of all care for profit. They don't care if they poison the water/air/earth. If it's profitable, they don't care. So why are they guilt tripping us all of a sudden? It's not like yesterday I released millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, possibly upsetting the natural environment for marine life.
3) Carbon taxes/Global Green Fascism - Rotschild owned bank set up to take your money. How is that going to solve anything? Taxing us to death? If they could, they'd even patent air and tax us for breathing. There's nothing these control freaks won't do.
We don't have a say in the development of this issue, because people at the top don't listen to us.
My playgroup: four people total.
We use the Legacy B&R list.
My meta consists of combo, control and some aggro / midrange decks.
My group uses proxies, so budget is not an issue. Because of this, things can get out of hand.
Have you read any of the actions more so from the UN on this? Right now there is a new UN resolution that is basically a massive transfer of wealth from Richer countries to poorer ones. all in the name of GW.
Other government mandates is making it more expensive for people to buy things than before. the new CAFE restrictions here in the US are going to be huge. affordable cars are going to be a thing of the past to meet the new standards. more so if you have a family and need a larger vehicle.
It is only a conspiracy if it isn't true or a lack of evidence to support it, However the problem is we do have evidence that it is true. There have been several University professors that have been threatened with having their funding pulled if they printed their stance against GW.
If people like al gore actually cared about what they preach they would live the that life. thing is they don't.
also the only people that benefit from this are people that deal in carbon trading which is a huge swindle all on it's own.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The two aren't connected. If anything so called "green technology" should be using the system to provide goods and services that people would want at an affordable price.
It doesn't. it trys to bully the market and people into feeling guilty. they are going at it backwards and wondering why people are resisting.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I must have missed the Nissan Leaf commercial where they say "Buy our product or the world will burn."
First, Let's speak in terms easier to understand the magnitude: Fahrenheit.
The graph you just showed has the Earth cool 33.6 degrees over 850 years, and then heat up 34.4 degrees in 150. That is a clear indication that something is entirely ****ed up there, and it's impossible to deny until you think rate has nothing to do with the matter - which is ignorant on all levels. As a crude analogy you do not die by pressing the brake of your car and going from 60mph to 0mph, but if you jump out of a plane and hit the ground you will die (if survive severely injured).
TL;DR it's not just a factor of magnitude, you have to consider time.
Have you seen the one that actually proves it's green? I missed that one.
In the end, arguing the how "green is forced into the market" means nothing since green technologies do sell and sell more and more than ever before. The problem is that there's no measure of what makes a green product more sustainable, and the idea of even trying to calculate it is all but impossible for complicated systems (like a vehicle).
Some things are obvious: local goods, reduce use of fuels, etc. But the real story is not to live in excess - which is the true conflict with American sensibilities since even the green folks don't want to give up their luxuries (or find ways to justify them). Moderation is the tough sell in a liberal economy that buys a lot of stuff.
The way the data is presented is a huge factor as well. If I show you a couple complete cycles of a sine wave (which can be rather representative of a cycling issue like global temperature), you would likely agree that everything looks good. It crosses "0" at three points and has similar peaks to it's positive and negative dips.
Now, if I take that same sine wave and only show you the part where it crosses "0" the second time (going negative) and a short period of time where it crosses "0" the third time (going positive), you would likely conclude that there is something wrong.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong...but your statement seems to be alluding to a swing of a total of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, which is wrong. The total swing was only 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit over 1012 years - not 68 degrees Fahrenheit.