News flash for flat-earthers

[Red Dawn]

tinypic.com?

I give factdenier the trend analyis from trained PhD scientists at NASA, he he give me some fucking cartoon from tinypic.com.




Fact Denier, we are all stupider for having read your posts. Go to wikipedia to learn what exactly trend analysis is. Because that piece of shit cartoon you posted wasn't it. That was a fucking joke.

 

[manifold]

This is one of those topics where voices of reason seem to be few and far between. It seems that people either think the sky is falling or that worrying about climate change is a waste of time and resources. I happen to think reality lies somewhere in between. But I do find it amusing when I see the sky is falling crowd trying to bully their agenda on others by suggesting that if you don't agree with them, your ignorance is analagous to believing the earth is flat. Perhaps these folks could benefit from reading the story about the boy who cried wolf. And equally amusing is the extreme artards on the other side that refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that mankind's influence, as minor as it may be in the grand scheme of mother nature, could still be enough to disrupt the balance. And if that is indeed true, mother nature's response will likely be none too pleasant.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure what the trends really mean, whether mankind has had any material influence, or if mankind can do anything about it either way. But still, none of that is sufficient reason to throw up our hands and take whatever may, or may not be coming our way either.

What I'd be interesed in hearing from the alarmists though, is what they think we should do.

 

[Red Dawn]

This is one of those topics where voices of reason seem to be few and far between. It seems that people either think the sky is falling or that worrying about climate change is a waste of time and resources. I happen to think reality lies somewhere in between. But I do find it amusing when I see the sky is falling crowd trying to bully their agenda on others by suggesting that if you don't agree with them, your ignorance is analagous to believing the earth is flat. Perhaps these folks could benefit from reading the story about the boy who cried wolf. And equally amusing is the extreme artards on the other side that refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that mankind's influence, as minor as it may be in the grand scheme of mother nature, could still be enough to disrupt the balance. And if that is indeed true, mother nature's response will likely be none too pleasant.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure what the trends really mean, whether mankind has had any material influence, or if mankind can do anything about it either way. But still, none of that is sufficient reason to throw up our hands and take whatever may, or may not be coming our way either.

What I'd be interesed in hearing from the alarmists though, is what they think we should do.

I've never asserted absolute certainty over anything, and I saw nothing approaching "alarmism" in this thread. It doesn't matter what you "think" or what I "think". Our emotions, feelings, and thoughts don't matter. The thing about hmessage boards is that everyone likes to play arm chair scientist, arm chair general, armchair economist.

When the truth is, none of us are experts in any of these fields. Beyond our little white collar or blue collar jobs, we really don't know jack shit about any of these topics.

Which is why I defer to experts in areas I don't know jack shit about. I only post or refer to the conclusions of ever major scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate sicence. And they ALL say that man is impacting the climate.

I give links to qualified and expert NASA scientists. Dudes and gals who have PhDs.

And what do the flat earthers give me in return? Tinypic.com, or some rightwing publication by lyndon larouche or "heartland.org"



I'm being a realist. If there is significant and credible evidence of a major, global environmental threat, you can choose to mitigate it....or you can choose to sit on you hands. Could the scientific consensus be totally wrong? there's always that chance


That great conservative icon Ronald Reagan would evidently agree with me. The science of the ozone hole was MUCH less developed and conclusive when reagan took action. Ozone hole depletion had only been studied for a few years. Not for decades, like green house emissions.

And Reagan concluded that although the science wasn't conclusive or perfect, the scale and nature of the threat precluded inaction and delay. And he fucking outright banned global production of CFCs in conjunction with other nations. And I can guarantee you Reagan didn't lose one second of sleep about it. He respected the expert scientific consensus, and immediately took drastic action to mitigate a potential major global environmental threat.

 

[del]

What I'd be interesed in hearing from the alarmists though, is what they think we should do.

I've never asserted absolute certainty over anything, and I saw nothing approaching "alarmism" in this thread. It doesn't matter what you "think" or what I "think". Our emotions, feelings, and thoughts don't matter. The thing about hmessage boards is that everyone likes to play arm chair scientist, arm chair general, armchair economist.

When the truth is, none of us are experts in any of these fields. Beyond our little white collar or blue collar jobs, we really don't know jack shit about any of these topics.

Which is why I defer to experts in areas I don't know jack shit about. I only post or refer to the conclusions of ever major scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate sicence. And they ALL say that man is impacting the climate.

I give links to qualified and expert NASA scientists. Dudes and gals who have PhDs.

And what do the flat earthers give me in return? Tinypic.com, or some rightwing publication by lyndon larouche or "heartland.org"



I'm being a realist. If there is significant and credible evidence of a major, global environmental threat, you can choose to mitigate it....or you can choose to sit on you hands. Could the scientific consensus be totally wrong? there's always that chance


That great conservative icon Ronald Reagan would evidently agree with me. The science of the ozone hole was MUCH less developed and conclusive when reagan took action. Ozone hole depletion had only been studied for a few years. Not for decades, like green house emissions.

And Reagan concluded that although the science wasn't conclusive or perfect, the scale and nature of the threat precluded inaction and delay. And he fucking outright banned global production of CFCs in conjunction with other nations. And I can guarantee you Reagan didn't lose one second of sleep about it. He respected the expert scientific consensus, and immediately took drastic action to mitigate a potential major global environmental threat.

so what is your proposed mitigation? that was an excellent long winded answer on the perceived shortcomings of people who disagree with you, and a nice little paean to reagan, but what should be done to *mitigate* the pernicious effects of global warming?

 

[Ravi]

This is one of those topics where voices of reason seem to be few and far between. It seems that people either think the sky is falling or that worrying about climate change is a waste of time and resources. I happen to think reality lies somewhere in between. But I do find it amusing when I see the sky is falling crowd trying to bully their agenda on others by suggesting that if you don't agree with them, your ignorance is analagous to believing the earth is flat. Perhaps these folks could benefit from reading the story about the boy who cried wolf. And equally amusing is the extreme artards on the other side that refuse to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that mankind's influence, as minor as it may be in the grand scheme of mother nature, could still be enough to disrupt the balance. And if that is indeed true, mother nature's response will likely be none too pleasant.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure what the trends really mean, whether mankind has had any material influence, or if mankind can do anything about it either way. But still, none of that is sufficient reason to throw up our hands and take whatever may, or may not be coming our way either.

What I'd be interesed in hearing from the alarmists though, is what they think we should do.

Find a less polluting way to transport people and things. Quit cutting down the rainforests...that's a biggie, IMO. I understand that a wood called ipe is so in demand that south american rainforests are being totally destroyed. Take a look at Haiti if you think we can live without forests.

 

[manifold]

Find a less polluting way to transport people and things. Quit cutting down the rainforests...that's a biggie, IMO. I understand that a wood called ipe is so in demand that south american rainforests are being totally destroyed. Take a look at Haiti if you think we can live without forests.

That sounds more like objectives than an action plan.

But at least it's something, I'll give you that.

 

[auditor0007]

A few things I think you guys are not aware of:

a) global warming does not predict that there will be no snow ever again.

b) global warming does not rest on an assumption that the climate cannot be changed by natural processes

c) global warming does not predict every single year will be warmer than the last, only that the general trend will be upwards

d) John Coleman is not a scientist and holds no degrees in science at all. His degree is in journalism and his career in TV weather and as a businessman.

Any question?

See, here is the result of a lack of education.

A perfect of example of those who didn't read "1984," where the government keeps changing who we are at war with, and some simply accept it.

Now here is a "true believer" who forgets that the original hoax was that we would all burn up. Now they call it "global change," and he will go with that as well.

I offered my suggestion that the bigger threat to the country was all those moving to Florida and warmer climes, from the north. Obviously the continent is about to tip over!

Damn PC, we better get some more even population distribution. Otherwise, if the country tips too far, we're going to have people falling off into the oceans.

 

[Red Dawn]

What I'd be interesed in hearing from the alarmists though, is what they think we should do.

I've never asserted absolute certainty over anything, and I saw nothing approaching "alarmism" in this thread. It doesn't matter what you "think" or what I "think". Our emotions, feelings, and thoughts don't matter. The thing about hmessage boards is that everyone likes to play arm chair scientist, arm chair general, armchair economist.

When the truth is, none of us are experts in any of these fields. Beyond our little white collar or blue collar jobs, we really don't know jack shit about any of these topics.

Which is why I defer to experts in areas I don't know jack shit about. I only post or refer to the conclusions of ever major scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate sicence. And they ALL say that man is impacting the climate.

I give links to qualified and expert NASA scientists. Dudes and gals who have PhDs.

And what do the flat earthers give me in return? Tinypic.com, or some rightwing publication by lyndon larouche or "heartland.org"



I'm being a realist. If there is significant and credible evidence of a major, global environmental threat, you can choose to mitigate it....or you can choose to sit on you hands. Could the scientific consensus be totally wrong? there's always that chance


That great conservative icon Ronald Reagan would evidently agree with me. The science of the ozone hole was MUCH less developed and conclusive when reagan took action. Ozone hole depletion had only been studied for a few years. Not for decades, like green house emissions.

And Reagan concluded that although the science wasn't conclusive or perfect, the scale and nature of the threat precluded inaction and delay. And he fucking outright banned global production of CFCs in conjunction with other nations. And I can guarantee you Reagan didn't lose one second of sleep about it. He respected the expert scientific consensus, and immediately took drastic action to mitigate a potential major global environmental threat.

so what is your proposed mitigation? that was an excellent long winded answer on the perceived shortcomings of people who disagree with you, and a nice little paean to reagan, but what should be done to *mitigate* the pernicious effects of global warming?

Lower CO2 emissions.

I'm not an armchair policy expert. And I try not to be a poseur and offer solutions for things I'm not an expert in, like brain surgery for example. Smarter people than me - experts - have come up with possible solutions. Like T-bone Pickens.


P.S. You obviously didn't read my post, or you simply reacted emotionally to it. I included MYSELF among those with shortcomings on climate change. I'm not an armchair policy wonk on it, nor am I a trained expert.

 

[KittenKoder]

IF global warming is NOT a hoax ... why haven't any of the hundreds of policies during the last 20 years worked?

 

[Old Rocks]

IF global warming is NOT a hoax ... why haven't any of the hundreds of policies during the last 20 years worked?

What policies, Kitten? Where do you pull these ridiculous statement out of? There has been no policy in this nation addressing the primary cause of global warming, the generation of GHGs.

A real policy would be to create a new grid that is capable of picking up power from a 5 gw nuke, as well as the 5 kw home solar installation. A real policy would be major, Manhatten Project type, research to lower the cost of photovoltaic down to 25 cents a watt. It would be to extend the grid into places like Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon. Places like Southeastern Oregon would take special precidence. You have in the same place, Geothermal, Solar, and wind. And we own the land. It is mostly BLM.

 

[dilloduck]

IF global warming is NOT a hoax ... why haven't any of the hundreds of policies during the last 20 years worked?

What policies, Kitten? Where do you pull these ridiculous statement out of? There has been no policy in this nation addressing the primary cause of global warming, the generation of GHGs.

A real policy would be to create a new grid that is capable of picking up power from a 5 gw nuke, as well as the 5 kw home solar installation. A real policy would be major, Manhatten Project type, research to lower the cost of photovoltaic down to 25 cents a watt. It would be to extend the grid into places like Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon. Places like Southeastern Oregon would take special precidence. You have in the same place, Geothermal, Solar, and wind. And we own the land. It is mostly BLM.

What do you mean by "WE", white man ?

 

[Chris]

IF global warming is NOT a hoax ... why haven't any of the hundreds of policies during the last 20 years worked?

What policies, Kitten? Where do you pull these ridiculous statement out of? There has been no policy in this nation addressing the primary cause of global warming, the generation of GHGs.

A real policy would be to create a new grid that is capable of picking up power from a 5 gw nuke, as well as the 5 kw home solar installation. A real policy would be major, Manhatten Project type, research to lower the cost of photovoltaic down to 25 cents a watt. It would be to extend the grid into places like Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon. Places like Southeastern Oregon would take special precidence. You have in the same place, Geothermal, Solar, and wind. And we own the land. It is mostly BLM.

Exactly.

What if we had spent $700 billion dollar on this, instead of Iraq?

We would be well on our way to American energy independence.

 

[FactFinder]

IF global warming is NOT a hoax ... why haven't any of the hundreds of policies during the last 20 years worked?

What policies, Kitten? Where do you pull these ridiculous statement out of? There has been no policy in this nation addressing the primary cause of global warming, the generation of GHGs.

A real policy would be to create a new grid that is capable of picking up power from a 5 gw nuke, as well as the 5 kw home solar installation. A real policy would be major, Manhatten Project type, research to lower the cost of photovoltaic down to 25 cents a watt. It would be to extend the grid into places like Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon. Places like Southeastern Oregon would take special precidence. You have in the same place, Geothermal, Solar, and wind. And we own the land. It is mostly BLM.

Exactly.

What if we had spent $700 billion dollar on this, instead of Iraq?

We would be well on our way to American energy independence.

With the same people in control it won't get any cheaper. They will still manipulate the market to gouge at every opportunity.