|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Its not just denialists, its people that simply do not care. They know full well what they are doing may be harmful, and they know its for later generations to worry about. The lack of actual effort being done is sealing our fate to whatever climate change brings. Hopefully the lower estimates are right and not the higher damage ones. We are at its mercy at this point and frankly I'm about done caring about it. No one is going to stop the developed and developing from exploiting every single instance of fossil fuels they can find. We can create all the green businesses we want and convince everyone to drive hybrids and ride bikes and go vegan and it will do jack poo poo. I've noticed a connection between 'People who don't care' and 'People who believe in the second coming or the Apocalypse'
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:That's idiotic. We all know that liberals (in the world sense, but especially in our peculiar American sense) whinge and whine about climate change while they do absolutely nothing to mediate or negate the environmental impacts they produce, and in fact environmentalists' obsession with visiting natural spaces clad in and wielding a dizzying array of overpriced consumer products from REI or similar businesses. If you cannot see how the connection might exist to a people who believe they really don't have to save the planet because god will come down and take care of everything, don't know how I can help you, Also: Its not just Christians, but I live in a nation that is filled with people who want to try to drag us into a theocracy, I think its a fair comparison. Also, as I pointed out, its not just the religious folks, but the people that assume the world is going to end in their lifetime anyways. However, its funny how you can turn and do the same thing to liberals that you claim I just did to Christians. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I didn't say we could avoid it, it doesn't mean the end of the world either. You act like nothing will be done is the issue. Nothing is being done now on a large scale, but humanity has demonstrated it will go through drastic hoops when pushed. We live in an age where the rise and fall of agriculture can mean the fall of nations, sure the slightest rise in temperature could not kill us, it could starve us to death however. We know we are making changes to the environment, we know that they are probably detrimental based on data analysis. Ignoring the changes because 'we don't know' is only going to end up bad for us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Sylink posted:My own opinion is that there is going to be a lot of death, but almost entirely in Asia/Africa (not dissimilar from now...) especially in South East Asia and India as overpopulation and dwindling land in some places gets royally hosed (like Bangladesh). The changes won't just be CO2, we are seeing changes in weather patterns and that will outweigh any benefits that extra CO2 would provide farmland. They are already reporting crop losses last year.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Studies show that if you give dire warnings of the future, but don't give solutions, people won't believe you. If we want to mobilize the public, we have to be stating solutions, not just the problem, and give people hope. To be fair, we have given solutions, and since they are inconvenient to people they choose to instead ignore the entire problem i.e. 'Gas prices went up?! HOW WILL I FILL UP MY FORD EXPLORER!' (Its an extreme example) Change is generally inconvenient and hard for most people, especially radical changes that require social systems or economic systems make adjustments. Its not that we haven't given several solution paths, people just think its too much
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Converting to near 100% nuclear energy while massively funding renewable and battery research/installation while also supporting movement into cities with massive funding for public transit is not a solution, but its what needs to be done yesterday to avoid significant portions of climate change. That is not happening anytime soon. Its a path to a solution, but you are absolutely right its not the entire solution. It doesn't stop emissions from cars and industrial as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:The fact that I can easily turn the argument to include liberals or just about anyone means that you singling out Christians is just dumb internet liberal "sky wizard" stuff... Oh grow up. Lets be clear: We know global warming/climate change is happening, most of us know something must be done. There are numerous people who, seriously, believe that climate change isn't real because 'This world was made for us'
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Yeah, and there's plenty in Christian doctrine that supports being good stewards to the planet, too, but that wouldn't fit your dumb prejudice. Got some citation to back that up? I'm well aware not all Christians are polluters with no care about the environment, ironically you are the one that shoved that into my mouth, I simply suggested that some Christians and other religious people believe there is no need to preserve the Earth. Either way, keep calling me a prejudiced liberal. Nobody cares. duck monster posted:
We'll never go full Venus, we're not close enough to the sun nor could we really get the greenhouse effect going to that level, but we can really screw up our agriculture and weather to the point where plant life outside of certain small regions would be nearly impossible. Either way, we need to get this in check. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Glimm posted:I saw this today and thought of this thread: Its cool, and sad at the same time, as the guy asked them to foreward the information to him, but he died shortly after leaving the message in the cairn 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:No comments about the new agreement between China and America? I don't buy what China is saying, their coal usage is still increasing, and they still have coal plants scheduled for construction, as well as coal gassification plants. I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:What I'm troubled by is that saying 'our emissions will peak in 2030' can mean there's a whole lot of pollution still in the pipeline. I wouldn't even call it a victory like it's being hailed as in the press. Pretty much. They are making bold claims without any need to rush into backing them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Proof that God exists and is an rear end in a top hat? Eh, its colder in places where its normally warm, and warm where its normally cold. God is a troll.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Arkane posted:538 succumbed to pressure from the shrillest corners of the climate change debate: the alarmist nuts. That's not good for science or really anybody. Man, its almost as if the evidence supports raising an alarm or something. Surely its just a bunch of kooks with highly specialized degrees in climate science 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think that was under a scenario where we adopt things like electric cars, which increases demand on the grid. Imagine all of the transportation section here, but going through the electricity section. Unfortunately they'll just get replaced with Coal or Gas. Vermont Yankee shutdown today and its likely going to be replaced with a Natural Gas
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:A triumphant win for the environmental movement, alongside the cancellation of Dickey-Lincoln way back when. Yup. Greenpeace and their ilk are so full of poo poo. That was 70% of their baseload generating too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, seeing how the plant wasn't shut down because of environmentalist but was shut down due to it being expensive to operate, I don't think the environmentalists can claim much credit. I'd say this is a win for O&G. There were multiple attempts to reapply for the license. It was just convenient to them to appear to give in to protest demands. Its a loss in my book
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Odonata posted:... back to nature, I guess? Greenpeace would actually like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Semiperimeter posted:As you mentioned, the article headlines is "Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048" but the paper itself is mentioning collapse. That says something about how accurate the rest of the article will be. How exactly are 'catch shares' going to fight ocean acidification and death of the CO2 regulating portions of ocean ecology?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
At the end of the day, overfishing is nothing next to the acidification of the ocean waters. That'll knock most if not all of the major ocean species in one fell swoop
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, okay, some people already disagree Its Roy Spencer, the guy is a raving creationist who works with the Heartland Group
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Murray Rothbard and all those other Austrian/Ancap shitheels trying to dress up political punditry as economic science (which itself is debatable as a science due to political proximity by nature) Don't forget noted Creationist and Meteorologist Roy Spencer! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2015/jan/18/pipeline-breach-spills-oil-yellowstone-river/283374/ Keystone is going to help protect the environment by preventing spills! http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2015/jan/18/pipeline-breach-spills-oil-yellowstone-river/283374/ quote:BILLINGS, Mont. -- Montana officials said Sunday that an oil pipeline breach spilled up to 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River near Glendive, Montana, but they said they are unaware of any threats to public safety or health.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is that the same pipeline that had a larger spill in the Yellowstone river a couple years ago? Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh. Well something something trains Don't go into the Keystone thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Bonus Myth Busting! Petroleum: It cleans the Earth 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:We aren't like every other species because we can artificially modify populations and the environment. We are kind of dependent upon the ecosystems that these specias make up however. We don't really have anywhere else to go
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:AR5 says nothing like "majority of edible ocean life dies". quote:A few studies provide limited evidence for adaptation in phytoplankton and mollusks. However, mass extinctions in Earth history The inability of species to survive in the ocean will disrupt a chain that you don't want to loving break. You are trying to be skeptical, when we have massive amounts of geological and paleological evidence for what happens during a slow-coming climate change. The one we are encouraging is a LOT more quick. Extinction level events are a certainty at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You disproved your own point in your post. Just because we might lose wild caught fish in our diet, which is awful, doesn't mean we will even have to stop eating all fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Impact_on_human_industry Putting 400-800 million people out of work is certainly NOT a plus. You are daft if you think its not going to be a major, if not world altering, event. Certainly close to apocalyptic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really, I'm trying to make a point about the extent of scientific support for impact scenarios and you link to wikipedia? http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682 Look, at this point you are banging your head against the wall: If you think that ocean acidification is going to be a 'meh' event, you might as well stop pretending to actually be concerned about Climate Change at all, its disingenuous. At the end of the day, changes to the acid levels of the ocean are going to be catastrophic to ocean life, which does have a direct impact on humans. The fact that you'd just handwave what could be the largest extinction even since the Paleocene is actually kind of disturbing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seeing how those exaggerated claims are what get held up as "proof" that climate change is a conspiracy or at best the science is faulty, yes it does hurt the chances of reform. Except is it REALLY exaggerated? We know the events that lead up to the last big wipe-out of the ocean and how it occurred, and we are seeing similar things right now. The problem is not the evidence and the claims, the problem is for profit companies that don't want regulation that these reforms will institute cutting into their profit margin! Trabisnikof posted:Exaggerating the impacts of climate change beyond what the science supports hurts both the credibility of advocates for change on climate policy and also reduces the chances of us actually doing something about it. We're not exaggerating. These things have happened before, it'd be one thing to make claims based on no evidence or history whatsoever, its a complete other thing when we know not only has this happened before, it was catastrophic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, its not hard to find an example of the deniers using a public claim by a non-scientist to "disprove" the science: Okay, Al Gore is not a scientist. Everytime someone brings up Al Gore as proof Climate Change is a hoax, I want to punch them in the face. Two: CNS News is a conservative news site. I'm kind of seeing a problem with that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sorry, I was unaware that modern civilization experienced anthropogenic climate change before, my bad!  You'd have to be a moron to not know what I am talking about. Well done. Just because humans were not involved or around during that one does not mean the same effects are going to be negligible upon the Human species.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event Trabisnikof posted:
And yet you don't seem to grasp how the Conservative movement is purely anti-Climate Change for no other reason than that they are taking their advice from Conservative Political leaders and Lobbyists, and why this should have no bearing on scientists raising very valid alarms.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic. Hmmmm, yes, yes, burning coal deposits. We don't do that as humans do we, no siree. Now you are being purposefully dense. The fact that you used BAU unironically and cited a Conservative Websites as 'proof' of the damage scientists are doing to the promoting Climate Change shoots your argument in the foot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My point isn't about the scientist raising valid alarms, it is about non-scientists exaggerating those alarms to beyond validity. Certainty is an important part of validity. Its loving CNS News. They exaggerate and ridicule any viewpoint that is not lockstep in like with the GOP/Conservative movement. You might as well asked Inhofe for his view on Climate Change. Check out their mission statement: quote:"prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" Guess which concept is not supported by them, no matter HOW much evidence we dig up? Trabisnikof posted:I used as an example, someone taking exaggerated impacts from a non-scientist and using it to "disprove" the science. That's the exact thing I'm talking about happening. Yes, Al Gore is a loving moron, but at least the idea behind his alarm is valid. Trabisnikof posted:Edit: just saw your edit, the importance of the fact modern climate change is anthropogenic is because if it is anthropogenic we have a better capacity to change it, compared to asteroids/volcanoes. We have no reason whatsoever to doubt it being anthorpogenic, and despite the fact that the cited event was caused by volcanoes, it released similar compounds to what is currently being cited by scientists as being tied to Climate Change today, it is a valid and comparable event CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not trying to dodge the question, I just was assuming the internal link was more obvious. When people like Al Gore say things that aren't supported by the science, those statements are later used as examples of the conspiracy or incompetence of climate change and are used in arguments to both sway public opinion and policy makers against action. This isn't the only obstacle facing action (nor even the biggest), but it isn't helpful to give more talking points to the deniers. The deniers don't need more talking points, they can just declare Climate Chang a liberal conspiracy and could still be doing the same damage without the Al Gore quote. Every time Science says something they don't like, they spin it as a conspiracy. Gore or no Gore, CNS News would be singing the same song.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Initiated by volcanic activity, but the real cause was ultimately the release of vast methane reserves from the ocean and the associated anoxic event. Which is exactly what scares the poo poo out of me, since we have no idea when that clathrate bomb might go off. True, either way, we are doing a pretty good job of imitating the effects those volcanoes caused. Trabisnikof posted:Correct. And the fact that they can use Al Gore quotes against us, isn't helpful. We need fewer dumb quotes, not more. They'll spin quotes however they have to in order to appeal to their readers. Could be the most informed quote in the world, and they would spin it. Stop bringing this up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about : If we are looking to politicians as 'proof' of support of climate change, we're going to have a bad time At the same if you are citing obviously biased cites as proof of the damage being done with quotes about climate change, you'll never stop finding them. quote:7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming. It. Doesn't. Matter. We could be sinking into the ocean right now, and half these idiots would still never be convinced otherwise, especially with the overwhelming majority of the GOP thinking we're in the 'Last Days' before the Second Coming, they would just treat climate change as proof that God is preparing us for Jesus 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Survival of the fittest, some kind of evolution mumbo jumbo. Suddenly, boom, we have anaerobic human life? BAU will push human evolution 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science? How is it not? Its lead to the the extinction of life on Earth before, why are we special? Despite our advances, we are still heavily dependent upon plants and animals that could very well be wiped out via such changes. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
crazypenguin posted:Actually talking to deniers can be very instructive. There are a huge number of conservatives who are under the impression that climate change is a made up pile of crap by people with an ideological interest in destroying capitalism. Yes, they are hard to get through to, but one tactic that will do no loving good whatsoever is to make up or exaggerate the consequences (see above: oh yeah, an anoxic event, that's totally something scientists think will happen) and then loving publicly state that you want to exploit the threat of climate change to end capitalism. CNS News, funded by Exxon Mobil and founded to 'fight liberal bias in the media' is not going to be swayed by evidence based arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 19:50
|
|