I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.
I dont know how anyone can say it doesnt line up. I think there's more than enough proof that many man-made byproducts of the industrial revolution have made some scars. To say that there's been global increases/decreases naturally before economic activity and use that as an excuse for today's problems, is risky.
As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...
Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.
Very funny.
Is it the gas or the size of the garage? You're asking the wrong questions. What is the cause of death in this case? TOXIC Carbon monoxide filling the lungs, caused by burning of gasoline. Holding this toxic soup in a small area is lethal in most garages, no matter the size. Size is only a factor in how long it will take you to die. So fart all you like. Point is, these gases at large amounts DO get trapped and DO affect our environment.
Why in God's name have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance?
Carbon monoxide is formed because there's of a lack of Oxygen to completely combust part of the carbon. CO2 is formed with complete combustion of a carbon source. The point being the car example:
1) Your car example, deals with carbon monoxide, not CO2 (the primary area of focus with global warming)
2) It becomes carbon monoxide due to the fact that there's "little" oxygen
3) The air above our head's has lots of oxygen, unlike car/garage example... which kinda makes this example - stupid and irrelevant
4) Plants need CO2 - which is also the area of concern, we exhale it and fart it... which makes my example at least slightly relevant.
I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.
pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."
I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.
As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Carbon monoxide is formed because there's of a lack of Oxygen to completely combust part of the carbon. CO2 is formed with complete combustion of a carbon source. The point being the car example:
1) Your car example, deals with carbon monoxide, not CO2 (the primary area of focus with global warming)
2) It becomes carbon monoxide due to the fact that there's "little" oxygen
3) The air above our head's has lots of oxygen, unlike car/garage example... which kinda makes this example - stupid and irrelevant
4) Plants need CO2 - which is also the area of concern, we exhale it and fart it... which makes my example at least slightly relevant.
Ok, geez you're right, there's absolutely no problem with emissions and industrial waste. Fuck it, pump as much shit into the atmosphere as you like. No problem. It will all just evaporate into nothing with no recourse. :? It was an analogy...sorry you cooulnd decipher that...the same thing goes for the amount of CO2 we create. Yes, WE CREATE, combined with the natural amounts of CO2 (farting :fp: , plants), could be a factor in global warming.
Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all. I guess ozone loss is natural too?
and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?
Ok, geez you're right, there's absolutely no problem with emissions and industrial waste. Fuck it, pump as much shit into the atmosphere as you like. No problem. It will all just evaporate into nothing with no recourse. :?
It might cause something, it may not. I certainly think it's not pleasant to breathe in. Again, I don't understand how weather's been cooling and heating before economic activity took off if it's not a normal chain of events.
It was an analogy...sorry you cooulnd decipher that...the same thing goes for the amount of CO2 we create. Yes, WE CREATE, combined with the natural amounts of CO2 (farting :fp: , plants), could be a factor in global warming.
I did decipher that, and I presented another analogy - farting and breathing and how to avoid a disaster we should just take everyone out. Obviously, that was a tongue and cheek way of saying, our very presence (non-economic activity at all) causes CO2, so how do we deal with that? Cease to exist all in the name of a guess at the reaction? I say - nah, I don't buy the guess anyway. There's tons of problems with it.
Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all.
I didn't address this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Why haven't certain ones banned stuff? Why hasn't everyone? I'd say everyone hasn't banned stuff because they know it could cripple economic activity and it would destroy their already bleeding economy. That's why.
and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?
From the articles data, as I mentioned at the outset - I'm not sure that it's happening. If it is, yeh, as of now, from looking at data and hearing out arguments, yes - I'm not too worried about it. Do I think that means I should pollute? Nope. I pick up trash and whatnot. But, do I think getting a prius and solar panels will really solve anything? Nope. Do I think ethanol in our gas did much? No, in fact it fucked things up worse for us by raising our gas prices. And now pro-environmental groups realize that was also a mistake environmentally, so now they want to switch that. ha ha... these are the same people who got it instituted - it's a fucking joke.
I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.
pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."
I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.
As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.
Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.
Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...
I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.
pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."
I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.
As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.
Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.
Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...
...not patronizing at all, man.
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
No. I did not do that.
Post edited by brianlux on
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!! It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!
not totaly true..
Godfather.
But true enough. You don't like the weather...blame global warming!
I have a challenge for everyone that doesn't believe people contribute to climate change. Go turn your car on and sit in your closed garage. You'll fucking die. Now is it that far of a stretch to believe that billions of us pumping that shit into the air may have a negative effect?
Go sit in the desert alone for a week as well...you'll die there too.
pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."
I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.
As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.
Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.
Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...
...not patronizing at all, man.
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
No. I did not do that.
What I said was tongue and cheek and even ended it with "dumb arguments, get dumb responses". I think a 4th grader could figure that out that there was sarcasm involved.
So, I don't buy it. I do think you're smarter than a 5th grader. So, I'm going to say what went down was patronizing because of this line:
"you're better than this, inlet".
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
Three-pages into this thread, and unfortunately I've been in more discussions on the definition of a word and sources of information than the original questions that I posed on the fabric of what was actually presented in the article itself, so I'll repeat them. Only one person decided to comment on these:
I'll bite and offer a quick summary of points:
1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.
2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.
3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?
4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.
5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?
What I said was tongue and cheek and even ended it with "dumb arguments, get dumb responses". I think a 4th grader could figure that out that there was sarcasm involved.
So, I don't buy it. I do think you're smarter than a 5th grader. So, I'm going to say what went down was patronizing because of this line:
"you're better than this, inlet".
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
Ok- sorry you took this as an insult. I just don't see the usefulness of so much sarcasm... but that's because I'm an old boomer that never caught on to that gen x sarcasm thing.
Oh shit! Now Hedonist is going to come after me with that waskawy wabbit again!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!! It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!
not totaly true..
Godfather.
But true enough. You don't like the weather...blame global warming!
I live about 7 to 10 miles from the beach so I really can't complain
Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all.
I didn't address this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Why haven't certain ones banned stuff? Why hasn't everyone? I'd say everyone hasn't banned stuff because they know it could cripple economic activity and it would destroy their already bleeding economy. That's why.
I'm talking about CFCs, refrigerants, and things that were proven to deplete the ozone or harm the environment. Things like the Clean Air act, or initiatives to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Why did they do that? and why not just leave all that stuff legal? Why hasnt everyone banned these things or made laws? Because not everyone has the same polluting cultures.
and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?
From the articles data, as I mentioned at the outset - I'm not sure that it's happening. If it is, yeh, as of now, from looking at data and hearing out arguments, yes - I'm not too worried about it. Do I think that means I should pollute? Nope. I pick up trash and whatnot. But, do I think getting a prius and solar panels will really solve anything? Nope. Do I think ethanol in our gas did much? No, in fact it fucked things up worse for us by raising our gas prices. And now pro-environmental groups realize that was also a mistake environmentally, so now they want to switch that. ha ha... these are the same people who got it instituted - it's a fucking joke.
Well, I cant argue with you whether you believe it could be as a result of human interference or not, but I dont see how you cant review some evidence and not admit that ice sheets are depleting. I gave info from NOAA, NASA, and many others that show satellite data as evidence that it IS happening. But if you're just talking about the original post and the 'record' thing, then thats fine...as I said, I dont focus on if its a record or not, I just want to know if its happening in an overall trend, if it will continue to get worse, and if its a problem.
What I said was tongue and cheek and even ended it with "dumb arguments, get dumb responses". I think a 4th grader could figure that out that there was sarcasm involved.
Fine, you thought my analogy about automobile emissions was a dumb argument. Please explain why there are laws in place for emissions and we are constantly trying to reduce emissions then? I know of no farting and breathing laws, yet. So, yeah, your analogy was tongue in cheek, dumb, and serves no purpose. Its like the idiotic comeback from people that say volcanoes release pollution, so its fine that we have millions of autos that pour toxins into our atmosphere.
I'll answer the same questions about your stupid comment about farting and breathing. I keep my farting to a minimum when on dates and in public. In my house, I will let them rip, and if they kill me or my wife, so be it. And my farts and breathing are natural. The excessive amounts of automobile emissions across the world likely far outweigh farting and breathing, except for possibly in DC, cause they're all full of shit there.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,417
For those of you not familiar with RealClimate .org here's they desribe the site:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
Plus the large majority of those who post comments on this site are from scientists. You will rarely find any posts there that are inflammatory, bating or off topic.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Fine, you thought my analogy about automobile emissions was a dumb argument. Please explain why there are laws in place for emissions and we are constantly trying to reduce emissions then? I know of no farting and breathing laws, yet. So, yeah, your analogy was tongue in cheek, dumb, and serves no purpose. Its like the idiotic comeback from people that say volcanoes release pollution, so its fine that we have millions of autos that pour toxins into our atmosphere.
Let's rephrase your words a bit to be correct - I thought your use of automobile emissions in a garagecausing death as an analogy to the concept of global warming to be as idiotic, if not more so than our farts and breathing causing global warming.
I think it's a dumb analogy. Our atmosphere is not a tiny garage. The gas in question (carbon monoxide) is not the same as the gas in question for global warming (CO2). There's more, but I digress. It was a dumb analogy. No offense meant personally- but, it's my opinion that it was a dumb analogy and simplifies the issue.
So, as a result I used another simplified issue. I figured people would say - farts and breathing is a dumb analogy. Probably is. But, once you opened up the can of worms I responded.
As for auto emissions, I suppose there are issues with direct pollutants. I'm not sitting here saying - one should spill toxins into rivers. Said all along - personally, I try to restrict polluting. Nor am I saying you should directly pollute the air one breaths in. Yet, then it gets slippery. What is it we're discussing? Oh yeh - it's global climate change. Saying direct pollution is bad for health (and stuff like smoking in somebody's face or littering is not nice) and non-direct pollution (caused from manufacturing goods) causes climate change is not equivalent whatsoever.
I'll answer the same questions about your stupid comment about farting and breathing. I keep my farting to a minimum when on dates and in public. In my house, I will let them rip, and if they kill me or my wife, so be it. And my farts and breathing are natural. The excessive amounts of automobile emissions across the world likely far outweigh farting and breathing, except for possibly in DC, cause they're all full of shit there.
So, I thought some of this was funny, but seriously I answered you in a serious manner above, why not try to respond to this in a serious manner. Cow "emissions", for instance, are a huge source of CO2 (some have argued more than cars) - which unlike all auto emissions are a singular source (one gas) of what you deem the problem involved in global climate change. How do we stop that? Kill cows? Breathing is also a source. Main point - there's a ton of "natural" sources of this gas. One shouldn't just ignore these natural sources, otherwise it appears as though the problem is only the sources linked to capitalism.... and it seems as if the argument is more "anti-capitalism" then it would be otherwise. Which makes one wonder... is it? Is this perhaps, all about capitalism?
I think it's a dumb analogy. Our atmosphere is not a tiny garage. The gas in question (carbon monoxide) is not the same as the gas in question for global warming (CO2). There's more, but I digress. It was a dumb analogy. No offense meant personally- but, it's my opinion that it was a dumb analogy and simplifies the issue.
The analogy that you missed is that the garage acts as a trap, just as does certain elements of our atmosphere. obviously not to the same degree, but the point was that it could be bad, and laws have been put in place because someone thought it was a problem. I was using the analogy, again, to explain that toxic elements trapped in a space can cause a problem, not specific to CO2 or not.
I'll answer the same questions about your stupid comment about farting and breathing. I keep my farting to a minimum when on dates and in public. In my house, I will let them rip, and if they kill me or my wife, so be it. And my farts and breathing are natural. The excessive amounts of automobile emissions across the world likely far outweigh farting and breathing, except for possibly in DC, cause they're all full of shit there.
So, I thought some of this was funny, but seriously I answered you in a serious manner above, why not try to respond to this in a serious manner. Cow "emissions", for instance, are a huge source of CO2 (some have argued more than cars) - which unlike all auto emissions are a singular source (one gas) of what you deem the problem involved in global climate change. How do we stop that? Kill cows? Breathing is also a source. Main point - there's a ton of "natural" sources of this gas. One shouldn't just ignore these natural sources, otherwise it appears as though the problem is only the sources linked to capitalism.... and it seems as if the argument is more "anti-capitalism" then it would be otherwise. Which makes one wonder... is it? Is this perhaps, all about capitalism?
Because my analogy did make sense, you just looked too far into it, and made a silly analogy to try to make mine look idiotic. It was also patronizing. Here's your flaw: We can, and have, curbed auto emissions because its been proven to be a problem (wehter its CO2 or not) and its easier than killing people and eliminating cows from the earth. :fp: No comparison. thought I do acknowledge that cow methane contributes, we dont need that combined with all of our industrial pollution. If we can reduce one, why not?
The analogy that you missed is that the garage acts as a trap, just as does certain elements of our atmosphere. obviously not to the same degree, but the point was that it could be bad, and laws have been put in place because someone thought it was a problem. I was using the analogy, again, to explain that toxic elements trapped in a space can cause a problem, not specific to CO2 or not.
But, the part of the analogy that breaks down is we're talking about global climate change. Not health. That was my point. You're saying we're affecting the weather. Then used that example that shows a person can harm themselves in a garage. Ok. But, we're talking about the weather.
I then responded with something natural that causes CO2. You say CO2 causes these weather changes, so I think mine makes a bit more sense.
Because my analogy did make sense, you just looked too far into it, and made a silly analogy to try to make mine look idiotic. It was also patronizing.
Well, I'd say both analogies are dumb - but, my analogy makes as much sense, if not more than yours. Why? Because it's a variable that causes what you are saying is the problem. So, I don't really think it was patronizing - if you felt that way - sorry.
Here's your flaw: We can, and have, curbed auto emissions because its been proven to be a problem (wehter its CO2 or not) and its easier than killing people and eliminating cows from the earth. :fp: No comparison. thought I do acknowledge that cow methane contributes, we dont need that combined with all of our industrial pollution. If we can reduce one, why not?
Here's the problem. You went from discussing cars in a garage which cause problems with carbon minoxide poisoning. Now, you're trying to sweep that into the CO2 debate on global climate change. Outocmes - health vs. climate. They aren't one in the same. As I'm sure you know emission standards weren't originally put in place to deal with climate - they were there for pollution (health). The issue we're discussing is climate change. Now, if you're saying auto emissions do cause global warming - I don't necessarily agree - I think they may, I'm undecided and if they did - the extent to which I don't know. But, that's another story - you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. But, you're saying it's autos - what else causes CO2 (which you're saying causes climate change)... cows, for example. They arguably cause more than autos. Why not eat them all? Or, as an example, have restrictions on how many can be on a farm or whatnot instead of curbing emissions? Seems to me - it's always the "most" economically linked aspect that global warming crowd goes after... once again, seems a bit fishy. Almost like their using regulation in this name to usher in more and more government control.... hmmm... maybe, just maybe.... there are many that are (pardon the bad word here) socialists at-heart and using this issue as a guise to gain more government power?
I think we're just on a different page man, I'm done and out...I just think we have to be more careful with our planet...did you read that .pdf with the dozens of scientists across the world explaining the adverse affects of melting ice? Its definitely a concern.
The analogy that you missed is that the garage acts as a trap, just as does certain elements of our atmosphere. obviously not to the same degree, but the point was that it could be bad, and laws have been put in place because someone thought it was a problem. I was using the analogy, again, to explain that toxic elements trapped in a space can cause a problem, not specific to CO2 or not.
But, the part of the analogy that breaks down is we're talking about global climate change. Not health. That was my point. You're saying we're affecting the weather. Then used that example that shows a person can harm themselves in a garage. Ok. But, we're talking about the weather.
I then responded with something natural that causes CO2. You say CO2 causes these weather changes, so I think mine makes a bit more sense.
Bad toxins negatively affect our environment. Fact. Yes, its more health related in this anaology, but there's a line to connect that these might have had an adverse affect, so why not fix it? Was there a hole in the ozone? I was also focusing on CFCs and others that did possibly have an effect on global climate. You didnt say anything about that, you just picked apart the analogy -- I think you just want to debate the little things. Aother point to the analogy that I think you missed was that we do bad things to our environment..its been proven, then we acknowledge it and change it -- we've done this with laws (EPA, emisions, etc), so maybe we are doing bad things that cause ice sheet depletion, and we can still fix it. Anyways, the analogy wasnt meant to be stripped down and looked at deeper and deeper and deeper, it was about how we identify our harmful ways and how we fix them.
Because my analogy did make sense, you just looked too far into it, and made a silly analogy to try to make mine look idiotic. It was also patronizing.
Well, I'd say both analogies are dumb - but, my analogy makes as much sense, if not more than yours. Why? Because it's a variable that causes what you are saying is the problem. So, I don't really think it was patronizing - if you felt that way - sorry.
You're analogy included killing people to slow global warming. :roll: And again, my point was that my analogy involves something that can be changed easily, and has been through laws. You skipped that part though.
Here's your flaw: We can, and have, curbed auto emissions because its been proven to be a problem (wehter its CO2 or not) and its easier than killing people and eliminating cows from the earth. :fp: No comparison. thought I do acknowledge that cow methane contributes, we dont need that combined with all of our industrial pollution. If we can reduce one, why not?
Here's the problem. You went from discussing cars in a garage which cause problems with carbon minoxide poisoning. Now, you're trying to sweep that into the CO2 debate on global climate change. Outocmes - health vs. climate. They aren't one in the same. As I'm sure you know emission standards weren't originally put in place to deal with climate - they were there for pollution (health). The issue we're discussing is climate change. Now, if you're saying auto emissions do cause global warming - I don't necessarily agree - I think they may, I'm undecided and if they did - the extent to which I don't know. But, that's another story - you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. But, you're saying it's autos - what else causes CO2 (which you're saying causes climate change)... cows, for example. They arguably cause more than autos. Why not eat them all? Or, as an example, have restrictions on how many can be on a farm or whatnot instead of curbing emissions? Seems to me - it's always the "most" economically linked aspect that global warming crowd goes after... once again, seems a bit fishy. Almost like their using regulation in this name to usher in more and more government control.... hmmm... maybe, just maybe.... there are many that are (pardon the bad word here) socialists at-heart and using this issue as a guise to gain more government power?
Ok, I can agree with some of that. I personally can see the possiblity of a connection between health and global climate change, so we'll just disagree likely. But I appreciate that you can admit that you're undecided on the autos affecting climate change. Its good to stay open about that. But again, my point on cars vs. cows, is that its already been done with emmissions--addressed with laws, restricitons and standards that keep getting more stringent because we know their dangers...and autos are easier to manipulate than cows and people...unless we just ban refried beans and guiness.
I'll never understand why conservatives dispute global warming.
Even when I was a Bush loving conservative in my early college years, I believed in global warming.
It's simple facts. Carbon dioxide and methane trap the suns radiation in the form of heat .When you burn fossil fuels you are loading them into the atmosphere and trapping more heat from the sun.
I don't see where the argument is. Yes the world is always changing, with or without us, but you have to be a complete idiot to think what we are doing has no effect.
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
It's like people want to argue for the sake of arguing.
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
i don't get why if it wasn't happening people would be pushing it. there is far more money to be made if it wasn't happening than if it was. it is in no ones interests for global warming to be real and man made, but the evidence is showing us that it is both real and man made.
no one is saying that combating global warming will be cheap or easy. but in the long run it will be far more beneifical to combat it.
i also don't get why people who are 'against' global warming don't just come out and say they don't give a fuck whether it is man made or not they aren't prepared to deal with the economic consequences of trying to combat it.
i don't get why if it wasn't happening people would be pushing it. there is far more money to be made if it wasn't happening than if it was. it is in no ones interests for global warming to be real and man made, but the evidence is showing us that it is both real and man made.
I'd say the big government crowd has reason to hope it exists. It provides more and more of a rational for greater regulation. I think someone like Al Gore knew that.
i also don't get why people who are 'against' global warming don't just come out and say they don't give a fuck whether it is man made or not they aren't prepared to deal with the economic consequences of trying to combat it.
Here's my take:
1) I don't know it exists
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
3) If it does exist, I sincerely believe the sun could have more to do with it than anything
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
5) Climate has been changing since the dawn of earth and for some reason a blind eye is cast to that.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
Most everyone's view on global warming is so tied to their political affiliation it's not even funny. It's hard for me to trust the info that's out there because there is so much propaganda.
However .... when a majority of scientists and academics leaning towards global warming increasing, I tend to give them more credibility then studies that are pushed by groups with agendas.
I'm going to leave my analysis to my eyeballs over the next five years.
It's too bad there cannot be a sane discussion on this topic.
I'd say the big government crowd has reason to hope it exists. It provides more and more of a rational for greater regulation. I think someone like Al Gore knew that.
I don't buy this 'big government' conspiracy. no one is for more regulation just for the sake of it, those who are 'Big Government' are so because they believe the market needs regulation in order for its outcomes to benefit the whole of society. they are also 'big government' because without regulation the believe that we will end up in a 'tragedy of the commons' situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Not necessarily. If it doesn't exist and/or our contribution is negligible, it will have hurt us economically. We already went over that.
even former sceptics are starting to believe that global warming exists. and that it is man made. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... finds.html) it is not just cliamatoligists who believe that global warming is happening, global warming is accepted by the vast majority of the whole scientific community as a fact. if you want to stick your head in the sand thats fine but there is a quickly dwindling number of people who agree with your point, especially in the scientific community. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
1) I don't know it exists
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
3) If it does exist, I sincerely believe the sun could have more to do with it than anything
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
5) Climate has been changing since the dawn of earth and for some reason a blind eye is cast to that.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
if you want to stick your head in the sand thats fine but there is a quickly dwindling number of people who agree with your point,
I ask questions and I admit when I'm not sure. I'm not sure about any of this at all and people get upset when you say that out-loud, which to me - is very, very telling. I'd say people who buy into something just because someone else does, who may have an ulterior motive, are sticking their head's in the sand. I actually looked into the issue and I ask questions. I've said repetitively "I don't know" and I'm not sure it really matters if it does exist because who knows how much we contribute - cows could contribute more. I work with empirical models all the time. I know how flawed they are. I stated my rational for my thoughts in my last post, but I'll just repeat them.
1) I don't know it exists
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
3) If it does exist, I sincerely believe the sun could have more to do with it than anything
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
5) Climate has been changing since the dawn of earth and for some reason a blind eye is cast to that.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
Comments
Carbon monoxide is formed because there's of a lack of Oxygen to completely combust part of the carbon. CO2 is formed with complete combustion of a carbon source. The point being the car example:
1) Your car example, deals with carbon monoxide, not CO2 (the primary area of focus with global warming)
2) It becomes carbon monoxide due to the fact that there's "little" oxygen
3) The air above our head's has lots of oxygen, unlike car/garage example... which kinda makes this example - stupid and irrelevant
4) Plants need CO2 - which is also the area of concern, we exhale it and fart it... which makes my example at least slightly relevant.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."
I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.
As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Ok, geez you're right, there's absolutely no problem with emissions and industrial waste. Fuck it, pump as much shit into the atmosphere as you like. No problem. It will all just evaporate into nothing with no recourse. :? It was an analogy...sorry you cooulnd decipher that...the same thing goes for the amount of CO2 we create. Yes, WE CREATE, combined with the natural amounts of CO2 (farting :fp: , plants), could be a factor in global warming.
Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all. I guess ozone loss is natural too?
and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?
Godfather.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012080816 ... liars.html
It might cause something, it may not. I certainly think it's not pleasant to breathe in. Again, I don't understand how weather's been cooling and heating before economic activity took off if it's not a normal chain of events.
I did decipher that, and I presented another analogy - farting and breathing and how to avoid a disaster we should just take everyone out. Obviously, that was a tongue and cheek way of saying, our very presence (non-economic activity at all) causes CO2, so how do we deal with that? Cease to exist all in the name of a guess at the reaction? I say - nah, I don't buy the guess anyway. There's tons of problems with it.
I didn't address this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Why haven't certain ones banned stuff? Why hasn't everyone? I'd say everyone hasn't banned stuff because they know it could cripple economic activity and it would destroy their already bleeding economy. That's why.
From the articles data, as I mentioned at the outset - I'm not sure that it's happening. If it is, yeh, as of now, from looking at data and hearing out arguments, yes - I'm not too worried about it. Do I think that means I should pollute? Nope. I pick up trash and whatnot. But, do I think getting a prius and solar panels will really solve anything? Nope. Do I think ethanol in our gas did much? No, in fact it fucked things up worse for us by raising our gas prices. And now pro-environmental groups realize that was also a mistake environmentally, so now they want to switch that. ha ha... these are the same people who got it instituted - it's a fucking joke.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Another totally right-wing political "news" source trying in invalidate rational scientific data.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.
Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...
...not patronizing at all, man.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
No. I did not do that.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I was surfing around and found this it's just the other side and what they say.
Godfather.
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
But true enough. You don't like the weather...blame global warming!
Go sit in the desert alone for a week as well...you'll die there too.
What I said was tongue and cheek and even ended it with "dumb arguments, get dumb responses". I think a 4th grader could figure that out that there was sarcasm involved.
So, I don't buy it. I do think you're smarter than a 5th grader. So, I'm going to say what went down was patronizing because of this line:
"you're better than this, inlet".
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ok- sorry you took this as an insult. I just don't see the usefulness of so much sarcasm... but that's because I'm an old boomer that never caught on to that gen x sarcasm thing.
Oh shit! Now Hedonist is going to come after me with that waskawy wabbit again!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I live about 7 to 10 miles from the beach so I really can't complain
Godfather.
I'm talking about CFCs, refrigerants, and things that were proven to deplete the ozone or harm the environment. Things like the Clean Air act, or initiatives to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Why did they do that? and why not just leave all that stuff legal? Why hasnt everyone banned these things or made laws? Because not everyone has the same polluting cultures.
Well, I cant argue with you whether you believe it could be as a result of human interference or not, but I dont see how you cant review some evidence and not admit that ice sheets are depleting. I gave info from NOAA, NASA, and many others that show satellite data as evidence that it IS happening. But if you're just talking about the original post and the 'record' thing, then thats fine...as I said, I dont focus on if its a record or not, I just want to know if its happening in an overall trend, if it will continue to get worse, and if its a problem.
again, wether or not you believe it, I'd give this a look: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Ved ... report.pdf
Fine, you thought my analogy about automobile emissions was a dumb argument. Please explain why there are laws in place for emissions and we are constantly trying to reduce emissions then? I know of no farting and breathing laws, yet. So, yeah, your analogy was tongue in cheek, dumb, and serves no purpose. Its like the idiotic comeback from people that say volcanoes release pollution, so its fine that we have millions of autos that pour toxins into our atmosphere.
I'll answer the same questions about your stupid comment about farting and breathing.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
Plus the large majority of those who post comments on this site are from scientists. You will rarely find any posts there that are inflammatory, bating or off topic.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Let's rephrase your words a bit to be correct - I thought your use of automobile emissions in a garage causing death as an analogy to the concept of global warming to be as idiotic, if not more so than our farts and breathing causing global warming.
I think it's a dumb analogy. Our atmosphere is not a tiny garage. The gas in question (carbon monoxide) is not the same as the gas in question for global warming (CO2). There's more, but I digress. It was a dumb analogy. No offense meant personally- but, it's my opinion that it was a dumb analogy and simplifies the issue.
So, as a result I used another simplified issue. I figured people would say - farts and breathing is a dumb analogy. Probably is. But, once you opened up the can of worms I responded.
As for auto emissions, I suppose there are issues with direct pollutants. I'm not sitting here saying - one should spill toxins into rivers. Said all along - personally, I try to restrict polluting. Nor am I saying you should directly pollute the air one breaths in. Yet, then it gets slippery. What is it we're discussing? Oh yeh - it's global climate change. Saying direct pollution is bad for health (and stuff like smoking in somebody's face or littering is not nice) and non-direct pollution (caused from manufacturing goods) causes climate change is not equivalent whatsoever.
So, I thought some of this was funny, but seriously I answered you in a serious manner above, why not try to respond to this in a serious manner. Cow "emissions", for instance, are a huge source of CO2 (some have argued more than cars) - which unlike all auto emissions are a singular source (one gas) of what you deem the problem involved in global climate change. How do we stop that? Kill cows? Breathing is also a source. Main point - there's a ton of "natural" sources of this gas. One shouldn't just ignore these natural sources, otherwise it appears as though the problem is only the sources linked to capitalism.... and it seems as if the argument is more "anti-capitalism" then it would be otherwise. Which makes one wonder... is it? Is this perhaps, all about capitalism?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The analogy that you missed is that the garage acts as a trap, just as does certain elements of our atmosphere. obviously not to the same degree, but the point was that it could be bad, and laws have been put in place because someone thought it was a problem. I was using the analogy, again, to explain that toxic elements trapped in a space can cause a problem, not specific to CO2 or not.
Yay! so you got it!I made my point woohoo.
Because my analogy did make sense, you just looked too far into it, and made a silly analogy to try to make mine look idiotic. It was also patronizing. Here's your flaw: We can, and have, curbed auto emissions because its been proven to be a problem (wehter its CO2 or not) and its easier than killing people and eliminating cows from the earth. :fp: No comparison. thought I do acknowledge that cow methane contributes, we dont need that combined with all of our industrial pollution. If we can reduce one, why not?
But, the part of the analogy that breaks down is we're talking about global climate change. Not health. That was my point. You're saying we're affecting the weather. Then used that example that shows a person can harm themselves in a garage. Ok. But, we're talking about the weather.
I then responded with something natural that causes CO2. You say CO2 causes these weather changes, so I think mine makes a bit more sense.
Not so sure you did. I never would have denied that. Direct pollutants and global warming are not one in the same. Not sure you get that.
Well, I'd say both analogies are dumb - but, my analogy makes as much sense, if not more than yours. Why? Because it's a variable that causes what you are saying is the problem. So, I don't really think it was patronizing - if you felt that way - sorry.
Here's the problem. You went from discussing cars in a garage which cause problems with carbon minoxide poisoning. Now, you're trying to sweep that into the CO2 debate on global climate change. Outocmes - health vs. climate. They aren't one in the same. As I'm sure you know emission standards weren't originally put in place to deal with climate - they were there for pollution (health). The issue we're discussing is climate change. Now, if you're saying auto emissions do cause global warming - I don't necessarily agree - I think they may, I'm undecided and if they did - the extent to which I don't know. But, that's another story - you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. But, you're saying it's autos - what else causes CO2 (which you're saying causes climate change)... cows, for example. They arguably cause more than autos. Why not eat them all? Or, as an example, have restrictions on how many can be on a farm or whatnot instead of curbing emissions? Seems to me - it's always the "most" economically linked aspect that global warming crowd goes after... once again, seems a bit fishy. Almost like their using regulation in this name to usher in more and more government control.... hmmm... maybe, just maybe.... there are many that are (pardon the bad word here) socialists at-heart and using this issue as a guise to gain more government power?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Bad toxins negatively affect our environment. Fact. Yes, its more health related in this anaology, but there's a line to connect that these might have had an adverse affect, so why not fix it? Was there a hole in the ozone? I was also focusing on CFCs and others that did possibly have an effect on global climate. You didnt say anything about that, you just picked apart the analogy -- I think you just want to debate the little things. Aother point to the analogy that I think you missed was that we do bad things to our environment..its been proven, then we acknowledge it and change it -- we've done this with laws (EPA, emisions, etc), so maybe we are doing bad things that cause ice sheet depletion, and we can still fix it. Anyways, the analogy wasnt meant to be stripped down and looked at deeper and deeper and deeper, it was about how we identify our harmful ways and how we fix them.
You're analogy included killing people to slow global warming. :roll: And again, my point was that my analogy involves something that can be changed easily, and has been through laws. You skipped that part though.
Ok, I can agree with some of that. I personally can see the possiblity of a connection between health and global climate change, so we'll just disagree likely. But I appreciate that you can admit that you're undecided on the autos affecting climate change. Its good to stay open about that. But again, my point on cars vs. cows, is that its already been done with emmissions--addressed with laws, restricitons and standards that keep getting more stringent because we know their dangers...and autos are easier to manipulate than cows and people...unless we just ban refried beans and guiness.
Even when I was a Bush loving conservative in my early college years, I believed in global warming.
It's simple facts. Carbon dioxide and methane trap the suns radiation in the form of heat .When you burn fossil fuels you are loading them into the atmosphere and trapping more heat from the sun.
I don't see where the argument is. Yes the world is always changing, with or without us, but you have to be a complete idiot to think what we are doing has no effect.
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
It's like people want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i don't get why if it wasn't happening people would be pushing it. there is far more money to be made if it wasn't happening than if it was. it is in no ones interests for global warming to be real and man made, but the evidence is showing us that it is both real and man made.
no one is saying that combating global warming will be cheap or easy. but in the long run it will be far more beneifical to combat it.
i also don't get why people who are 'against' global warming don't just come out and say they don't give a fuck whether it is man made or not they aren't prepared to deal with the economic consequences of trying to combat it.
I'd say the big government crowd has reason to hope it exists. It provides more and more of a rational for greater regulation. I think someone like Al Gore knew that.
Not necessarily. If it doesn't exist and/or our contribution is negligible, it will have hurt us economically. We already went over that.
Here's my take:
1) I don't know it exists
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
3) If it does exist, I sincerely believe the sun could have more to do with it than anything
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
5) Climate has been changing since the dawn of earth and for some reason a blind eye is cast to that.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
However .... when a majority of scientists and academics leaning towards global warming increasing, I tend to give them more credibility then studies that are pushed by groups with agendas.
I'm going to leave my analysis to my eyeballs over the next five years.
It's too bad there cannot be a sane discussion on this topic.
I don't buy this 'big government' conspiracy. no one is for more regulation just for the sake of it, those who are 'Big Government' are so because they believe the market needs regulation in order for its outcomes to benefit the whole of society. they are also 'big government' because without regulation the believe that we will end up in a 'tragedy of the commons' situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
even former sceptics are starting to believe that global warming exists. and that it is man made. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... finds.html) it is not just cliamatoligists who believe that global warming is happening, global warming is accepted by the vast majority of the whole scientific community as a fact. if you want to stick your head in the sand thats fine but there is a quickly dwindling number of people who agree with your point, especially in the scientific community. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I ask questions and I admit when I'm not sure. I'm not sure about any of this at all and people get upset when you say that out-loud, which to me - is very, very telling. I'd say people who buy into something just because someone else does, who may have an ulterior motive, are sticking their head's in the sand. I actually looked into the issue and I ask questions. I've said repetitively "I don't know" and I'm not sure it really matters if it does exist because who knows how much we contribute - cows could contribute more. I work with empirical models all the time. I know how flawed they are. I stated my rational for my thoughts in my last post, but I'll just repeat them.
1) I don't know it exists
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
3) If it does exist, I sincerely believe the sun could have more to do with it than anything
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
5) Climate has been changing since the dawn of earth and for some reason a blind eye is cast to that.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="