You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Are there peer reviewed papers which show a direct causal link between humans and climate change? Last time I looked there wasn't, and all we had was correlation
Climate changes, it used to be a lot hotter than it is now (geologic temperature record)
we're in an interglacial period, it's supposed to warm
You wanna make changes that will make us cleaner and more responsible as a species? great!
Just don't kill my bank account because you've found a way to profit from hysteria
Ok what's the long list of species that would suffer if we stop the Earth from rising to scorching temperatures? I'm pretty sure the majority of living things on Earth are suited just fine for shit not getting hotter than it currently is.
Seeing as how things die or hibernate every winter and most of the biodiversity lives around the equator, one could conclude that life prefers a warmer climate. Maybe if the planet was warmer, there would be more biodiversity?
But my point was that as a single species on this planet, we shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. Let nature figure that out.
__________________
"Damn fine car Dodge... Ran over me wife with a Dodge!", Zeke
People worrying about their bank accounts is literally going to ruin the future of the human (and many other) species. It blows my mind
The human race is not going extinct.
What's going to happen is that it's going to get harder to live in some parts of the world. A whole wack of people are going to die off, but eventually hit a population equilibrium with what's still possible to sustain life. The people who remain in that equilibrium are likely going to be the most wealthy today and can afford to migrate and pay the inflated costs of living.
It's the days of unchecked, exponential population growth of the human race a la today that's going to be over.
Best thing I can do is make sure my kids are left well off for that new reality.
Seeing as how things die or hibernate every winter and most of the biodiversity lives around the equator, one could conclude that life prefers a warmer climate. Maybe if the planet was warmer, there would be more biodiversity?
But my point was that as a single species on this planet, we shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. Let nature figure that out.
As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.
I don't deny that we're a huge cause of global warming but I don't believe this "omg we only have TWELVE YEARS to turn it around!"
Haven't scientists been wrong several times over? I mean, how many fucking times should we have run out of oil now? Shouldn't certain cities be underwater by now?
Not saying I don't agree with doing what you can to lessen your impact, but I'm still going to drive my V8 car like the captain of the Titanic going down with the ship.
As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.
That's the thing... which is the right direction? We're only guessing. How do we know a warmer planet isn't a greener planet full of plants thriving on the CO2 and a lot more species feeding on these plants. But if we keep thinking in terms of "we" and "us" then keeping things the way they are is the thing to do.
__________________
"Damn fine car Dodge... Ran over me wife with a Dodge!", Zeke
When I saw Greta give a stare down of Dotard, that picture showed the great divide between different generations of people in terms of their view of climate change.
I heard that her cold stare lowered the planet's temperature by 2°
We're just a species living on a rock until something happens like an astroid, ice age, nuclear war, alien invasion or some crap kills us. Doesn't change the fact that this rock is placed just at the right distance from the sun to sustain life. Earth will always regenerate life even if we all end up dying for some reason.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyMark
As the species who are the cause of it perhaps we should be making the decisions. Letting nature figure out our fuck ups is like saying "let Jesus take the wheel!" to any big problems that we face. Some stuff doesn't just figure itself out. Should we just let cancer and other diseases go unchecked with the hope that in a few thousand years our bodies will naturally adapt to fight it itself? Were at the top of the food chain and it's on us to steer the ship in the right direction.
It is due to medical advancement that the human race is running into over population, over use of natural resources, over pollution. If we let cancer and other disease due what they were meant to do maybe we wouldn't have all these issues we are having now.
What's going to happen is that it's going to get harder to live in some parts of the world. A whole wack of people are going to die off, but eventually hit a population equilibrium with what's still possible to sustain life. The people who remain in that equilibrium are likely going to be the most wealthy today and can afford to migrate and pay the inflated costs of living.
It's the days of unchecked, exponential population growth of the human race a la today that's going to be over.
Best thing I can do is make sure my kids are left well off for that new reality.
Note when I say "ruin the future" I don't necessarily mean "go extinct". Humans are a hardy species, and will make do with all types of living conditions. They'll wipe out anything in their path in order to do so (as they always have). Their future is going to be pretty well ruined though, and I don't just mean that it's going to be a bit hotter outside than what we're used to.
All these people who are worried more about attaining extra wealth instead of seeing if they can take action now to make the world a more liveable place (if it's not too late) might be in for a surprise when nations (and their currencies) crash and are suddenly worth much less, or nothing at all.
The point is that many people are overly concerned about attaining excessive wealth, to the point where they ignore science and literally become idiots. And interestingly, generally the richer people are, the more damage to the environment they do. So it's more than twice as bad that people think like this.
If it wasn't, you would have shared some of your evidence, because I don't see it.
Do you see a direct correlation between atmospheric co2 and temperature? Because i don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr00jimbo
Haven't scientists been wrong several times over? I mean, how many fucking times should we have run out of oil now? Shouldn't certain cities be underwater by now?
Just a few times
Spoiler!
1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 – “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007– “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Section updated by Anthony:
2009 – Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters. Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis – “Not only are the oceans and atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms and floods, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too,” – Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, at University College London, – The Guardian, Sep 2009.
2010 – What Global Warming Looks Like. It was more than 5°C (about 10°F) warmer than climatology in the eastern European region including Moscow. There was an area in eastern Asia that was similarly unusually hot. The eastern part of the United States was unusually warm, although not to the degree of the hot spots in Eurasia. James Hansen – NASA GISS, August 11, 2010.
2011 – Where Did Global Warming Go? “In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development. – New York Times, Oct 15, 2011.
2012 – Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists. “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines,” said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London. Reuters, Mar 26, 2012
2013 – Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way. New York Post, Dec 5, 2013
2014 – Climate change: It’s even worse than we thought. Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer. – New Scientist (undated in 2014)
If you saw a psychic this many times and they were wrong 100% of those, you'd laugh in their face if they asked for more money. And you'd be a fool to believe them.
__________________
Gold is the money of kings;
Silver is the money of gentlemen;
Barter is the money of peasants;
But debt is the money of slaves.
-Norm Franz
Note when I say "ruin the future" I don't necessarily mean "go extinct". Humans are a hardy species, and will make do with all types of living conditions. They'll wipe out anything in their path in order to do so (as they always have). Their future is going to be pretty well ruined though, and I don't just mean that it's going to be a bit hotter outside than what we're used to.
All these people who are worried more about attaining extra wealth instead of seeing if they can take action now to make the world a more liveable place (if it's not too late) might be in for a surprise when nations (and their currencies) crash and are suddenly worth much less, or nothing at all.
The point is that many people are overly concerned about attaining excessive wealth, to the point where they ignore science and literally become idiots. And interestingly, generally the richer people are, the more damage to the environment they do. So it's more than twice as bad that people think like this.
... you do know that one of the wealthiest persons in the world is attempting to end our reliance on coal generation, one of the largest co2 emitters on our plant. It will provide reliable power and be orders of magnitudes more productive than all of wind, tidal, geothermal, and solar combined. I'd like to see stats to your points. Unless you were talking about the bitcoin farms that gobbled up loads of coal power, then I see your point.
these graphs are terrible.. if you guys want to present 'evidence', then you can't show graphs that have time scales of 100s of thousands of years, or millions of years, with peaks and valleys that look sudden but are really gradual.
We're on track to have increased the global temperature by several degrees in just 100 years
Classic deception. Take a tiny sliver of data from the entire scheme and present it as evidence.
There have been periods where co2 was many times higher than what we have today and yet the temperature was similar and even lower than present.
The fact is none of the plethora of past climate models have been correct. And yet for some reason it's now seen as crazy to even question them? Ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit
these graphs are terrible.. if you guys want to present 'evidence', then you can't show graphs that have time scales of 100s of thousands of years, or millions of years, with peaks and valleys that look sudden but are really gradual.
We're on track to have increased the global temperature by several degrees in just 100 years
No, it's silly to look at an infinitesimally small amount of data when attempting to assume something as complex as variations in climate
__________________
Gold is the money of kings;
Silver is the money of gentlemen;
Barter is the money of peasants;
But debt is the money of slaves.
-Norm Franz
Yea we should totally do something to combat climate change!!
*continue driving solo to work instead of taking public transit
*set air conditioner to 22c during summer, and heat to 23c during winter
*travel 2-3 times a year around the world for vacation
*say I support carbon tax, but get angry when gas prices and energy prices shoot up so I have to pay more at the pump and for utility (whole point of carbon tax is to make energy more expensive so people would use less of it)
*New phone, laptop, pc, clothing every few months
*Owns shit tons of unnecessary things..80% of them end up in trash after 2-3 years
*Consume to excess everyday....steak, wine, cheese. Zero consideration how damaging your food choice is to the planet
*Does nothing to actually help reduce co2, just complain and say climate change bad. Someone else should do something to reduce greenhouse gas.
A bit of a rant but I just think ultimately, our lifestyle and entitlement is the biggest problem.
Can't blame it all on politician, corporation. They are just tools making stuffs we ask for.
If Shell tomorrow say they will produce their gas in a carbon neutral way, but it will cost 50% more. Pretty sure they will go out of business because no one would buy from them.
Same goes for politicians who tax gas to $4/L. High gas price will reduce consumption, promote public transit, carpooling, cycling, etc, but they won't get elected.
Cant remember where it read it, but somewhere it said that the girl giving that speech had major anxiety.
Someone hired her as an actor and "transitioned" her anxiety to being climate change, than her own issues. Therefore, it resulted in the "crazy kid" speech that we all saw.
Cant remember where it read it, but somewhere it said that the girl giving that speech had major anxiety.
Someone hired her as an actor and "transitioned" her anxiety to being climate change, than her own issues. Therefore, it resulted in the "crazy kid" speech that we all saw.
Facebook.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
