so yesterday I pull up next to a hummer

1234579

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Agree. Of even more uncertainty is the magnitude role that the greenhouse effect has on climate change. Bringing this fact up seems to bother some environmentalists though.

    what is bothersome is that there is no uncertainty in the consensus that humans are causing this change in climate ... so, what you say is indeed not a Fact ...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    what is bothersome is that there is no uncertainty in the consensus that humans are causing this change in climate ... so, what you say is indeed not a Fact ...

    But humans could be behind 10% of the change or they could be behind .5% of the change. That is what's not known and can't be determined.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    what is bothersome is that there is no uncertainty in the consensus that humans are causing this change in climate ... so, what you say is indeed not a Fact ...
    So you are saying that 100% of current climate change is being caused by humans. Am I supposed to take this seriously. Are you adding this post to your portfolio you're gona show Michael Moore when trying to get a job as a fact checker on his next movie. You've just stated that for the first time in the history of the world that nature does not have the climate in flux, that all climate change is now from humans. Brilliant.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    I've seen doomsday predictions as small as 10 years before irreversability. Given the consequences of irreversable climate change I suggest we do more about it, but it would also help if the rhetoric from some in the environmental field stopped.

    I could go with 10 years or 200 years and still be on par with science.

    Exactly, but whether it's 10 or 200 shouldn't matter. It's something that needs to be addressed. My opinion is that it's probably 50-100 like the recent studies have concluded....and maybe the ones saying 10 years just know that a lot of people are going to be resistant so if we start our panic mode right now then maybe we'll be able to pull our heads out of our collective ass before it's too late.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    ...and maybe the ones saying 10 years just know that a lot of people are going to be resistant so if we start our panic mode right now then maybe we'll be able to pull our heads out of our collective ass before it's too late.
    But that would be politicizing science. Doesn't it stop being science when you deliberately distort facts? I've ben told be some on this board that the climate change debate has not been politicized in any way, that science is pure.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    So you are saying that 100% of current climate change is being caused by humans. Am I supposed to take this seriously. Are you adding this post to your portfolio you're gona show Michael Moore when trying to get a job as a fact checker on his next movie. You've just stated that for the first time in the history of the world that nature does not have the climate in flux, that all climate change is now from humans. Brilliant.
    Surferdude, that's such an extreme statement. Humans are to blame for recent climate change. It's non-disputed by experts. Sure climate has changed over time but the recent changes have been proven to be humam related and spiraling out of what soon will be anyone's control.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Surferdude, that's such an extreme statement. Humans are to blame for recent climate change.
    I'm not the one that made the assertation. And I would hope you mean "Humans are to blame for a portion of recent climate change. The portion of climate change that is caused by humans is under serious debate and there is no answer at this time. But owing to the magnitude of the problems posed by climate change we should be doing all we can to lessen our impact on the environment, especially as to how it relates to the greenhouse effect".
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    But that would be politicizing science. Doesn't it stop being science when you deliberately distort facts? I've ben told be some on this board that the climate change debate has not been politicized in any way, that science is pure.
    Well, there are obviously some that are politicizing it. It's naive to believe anything else. But that's the minority....just like I said. I would refer to the ones claiming, "2010 watch it go to fire" as politicizing it, while the grand majority are giving us 50-100 years to turn it around.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    I'm not the one that made the assertation. And I would hope you mean "Humans are to blame for a portion of recent climate change. The portion of climate change that is caused by humans is under serious debate and there is no answer at this time. But owing to the magnitude of the problems posed by climate change we should be doing all we can to lessen our impact on the environment, especially as to how it relates to the greenhouse effect".
    co2 is directly related to climate change. co2 has been out of control lately and so has the Earth's temperature. Can you dispute that humans are 100% responsible for the skyrocketing co2 emmissions? My opinion is that humans are 100% responsible for the abnormal climate changes we're now experiencing and are about to experience. Obviously there are the normal shifts here and there but recent changes in climate are 100% human related, IMO.
  • Scratchin a Letter
    Scratchin a Letter Posts: 2,303
    I own a 1994 VW Polo G40.

    Only 4 gears but I can push 113mph....

    and it gets me 48mpg
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    So you are saying that 100% of current climate change is being caused by humans. Am I supposed to take this seriously. Are you adding this post to your portfolio you're gona show Michael Moore when trying to get a job as a fact checker on his next movie. You've just stated that for the first time in the history of the world that nature does not have the climate in flux, that all climate change is now from humans. Brilliant.

    what is brilliant is that you still refuse to answer questions that contradict your dismissal ... let me know when you will accept that toxic waste ...

    either way - if you study the science which after all these conversations is clear you have not ... you will see that any major changes in climate in the past have been accounted for - yes, there are natural variabilities in climate - no one disputes that but this variability we are experiencing is most definitely man made ... the rest of the world has figured it out ...

    whether or not 100% is man-made is secondary to the fact that the majority of the cause is definitely related to human activities ...
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    polaris wrote:
    whether or not 100% is man-made is secondary to the fact that the majority of the cause is definitely related to human activities ...
    Exactly. The horrifying negative effects are attributed to humans and rightly so. Not by me, not by polaris, but by the entire scientific community, save a few who are undoubtedly sitting on George's bush.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    again - would you offer your home for dumping of toxic waste? ... if no one can accurately predict what the consequences are it must be ok?
    No I wouldn't offer my home for dumping of toxic waste. But I wouldn't tell people that 100% of people getting cancer who love near toxic waste is due to toxic waste. I will not lie to make a point.

    Not doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions is stupid. Allowing your house to be used as a toxic dump site is stupid. Lieing about climate change is stupid. Being fat and out of shape is stupid.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    But humans could be behind 10% of the change or they could be behind .5% of the change. That is what's not known and can't be determined.

    get back to me when you answer the greenhouse effect question ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    No I wouldn't offer my home for dumping of toxic waste. But I wouldn't tell people that 100% of people getting cancer who love near toxic waste is due to toxic waste. I will not lie to make a point.

    Not doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions is stupid. Allowing your house to be used as a toxic dump site is stupid. Lieing about climate change is stupid. Being fat and out of shape is stupid.

    but your dismissal of climate change is that there are not 100% accurate models - how is this any different? ... who is lying about climate change? ... you go from dismissing it because there are not accurate models to now people are lying about it?
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Exactly. The horrifying negative effects are attributed to humans and rightly so. Not by me, not by polaris, but by the entire scientific community, save a few who are undoubtedly sitting on George's bush.
    Just when you are doing better you slip into that politicized mode again with "horrifying negative effects". On the one hand you tell me we have between 50 and 100 years to reverse our impact on climate chaneg we make via the greenhouse effect, then you use "horrifying negative effect". Please make up your mind. How is climate chaneg that is reversable horrifying?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    but your dismissal of climate change is that there are not 100% accurate models - how is this any different? ... who is lying about climate change? ... you go from dismissing it because there are not accurate models to now people are lying about it?
    Show me once where I've dismissed it. I've stated over and over that we should do something about our impact on both the environment and greenhouse gas emissions. I'm just tired of the lies coming from the environmental community, it's disheartening. At least I can dismiss those that doubt the greenhouse effect as uneducated. How do you deal with those who out right lie to make their points? How do you deal with the scientists who don't say anything about the lies being told? Or is it a case of the lies are all being told to back science so it's okay?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    Just when you are doing better you slip into that politicized mode again with "horrifying negative effects". On the one hand you tell me we have between 50 and 100 years to reverse our impact on climate chaneg we make via the greenhouse effect, then you use "horrifying negative effect". Please make up your mind. How is climate chaneg that is reversable horrifying?
    Having only 50 years to prevent mass destruction of humanity is not horrifying to you?
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Having only 50 years to prevent mass destruction of humanity is not horrifying to you?
    Not even to mention the spread of west nile and other viruses that are growing because our winters are not killing insects like they need to be. What about the polar bear population being depleted quite rapidly. What about 20 of the 21 hottest years on record having occurred within the last 25 years? None of this horrifies you? Just because it may be reversable doesn't mean it will be. People tend to spend more time arguing against it than doing anything about it. That, to me, is horrifying.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Having only 50 years to prevent mass destruction of humanity is not horrifying to you?
    So you think humans would not find a way to adapt to changes in climate. I'd say it is safe to say that humans would find a way to adapt, it's in out nature to adapt. We've lived in all sorts of climates, from the Australian outback, Sahara Deserts, the Artic Circle to Trpoical Rainforests. I wonder what you've seen in human history to make you think we couldn't and wouldn't adapt.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley

Categories