Global warming BS part II
Comments
-
RM291946 wrote:
No...the quote shows what data they based the model around. The part in bold shows the data they were basing it on was pathetically incomplete and inaccurate.
Maybe that slap will wake you up. You are wrong. The data is not pathetically imcomplete and inaccurate so don't paint it as such. There is a huge difference between "pathetically incomplete" and unavailable. We work with what we have. Where exactly did you get "inaccurate" from?RM291946 wrote:"They" are the professional environmentalists pushing their agenda on everyone.
Pushing people to pollute less is fantastic. Pushing people to do things they believe are causing less pollution but really actually causes more, is not so fantastic.
Yale economist William Nordhaus humoured Gore. He worked out the cost if Gore was right about global warming. He found that unchecked gw, of the 3 degrees Gore says we'll go up by, would cost the world 22 trillion$ in damages this century. By avoiding emissions and checking growth, Gore's package of measures -no new coal plants, lower household energy use, and so on- would reduce gw toll to 10 trillion$. Yet precisely because the policies limit economic growth and impede develoupment, they would come at a high cost: 34 trill$ to be exact. so the world would suffer a total cost of 44 trill$ worth of damage from the combo of residual warming, and Gore-inflicted economic wounds. Twice the cost of unchecked warming.
It's not about Cadillac Escalades vs. Lodgepole Pines. It's about access to energy vs. continued poverty.
Access to energy is crucial to develoupment. The policies being introduced and enforced make energy more expensive and less available. It steepens the climb faced by those in the develouping world, where billions of people have never turned on an electric light, and women in particular are condemned to back-breaking labour, gathering firewood to carry it for miles to burn in poorly ventilated huts.
Don't make assumptions of me. If I didn't care about the poor, I would not have founded a charity that helps them, and I certainly would not be refusing pay from the foundation if I was as selfish as you are attempting to portray me. I work primarily from home. I rarely am the one taking flights overseas for the foundation, we send only those most qualified for a particular project and only as often as absolutely necessary. I made a point of forming Opre so that it gathers volunteers that live in the area of the project to aid in it, typically the parents of the children we are building the schools for. I walk to the grocery store, use reusable bags, if that is what you have decided makes someone "green," now you know I do those things. I recycle, I never throw away food unless it either went bad faster than it should have (ie-I use Parmalat milk, it lasts for ages, but my most recent box went bad within a week..), or was already spoiled when I bought it. Even bones go to the dogs and my people are the kings and queens of stew's we don't waste because of a long history of not being able to, if we do, we go hungry. I grow my own fruit and veggies. And pretty much the only time ever use my vehicle, it is to transport my wheelchair-bound mother to the Veteran's Hospital for appointments.
so I advise you not to make assumptions about me and who I am and how I live my life. I have not done the same of you.
If you go back and see not once have I mentioned supporting hardcore environmentalists in their quests for purely green lifestyles. All I have repeatedly said was I believe humans have an impact on the climate and we should do something about it. You're ASSUMPTION of me and of everyone in the previous threads was that because we believe humans have an impact on the climate we are some hardcore environmentalists that want the rest of the world to live like the Amish. Plus, your use of emoticons or "ROFL" or some other shit constantly reflects your disrespect for others opinions so why should I respect yours?0 -
What is the difference?
If you have a conclusion based on largely incomplete, or to use your word of preference, "unavailable," data makes it inaccurate. To be accurate, it would require all the data.
I have made no assumptions of the like. I understand what you are saying. You are not grasping that of the things you think are "greener living," many are not, and it is the professional environmentalists who have created that list of what is or isn't "green."
I would not use the term "hardcore" paired with environmentalist when referring to the professional ones. The only thing hardcore they are is hardcore power-mongerers.
I will not give up my emoticons. some express a feeling in the same way a facial expression does- better than words. Post edited by Flutter Girl on0 -
Now here's a hardcore environmentalist-
Perhaps Al could take a lesson from one unlikely convert to the cause of GW alarmism. In his sept 2007 rant from the cave, Osama bin Laden repeated the bs GW propoganda-
The life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa.
But unlike Gore, Osama is actually walking the walk. He's cut down on his air travel LoL, telecommutes from home
, and it appears he doesn't use a car at all. He has adopted the ideal radical environmentalist lifestyle down to the very last detail - it really is back to the cave.
0 -
RM291946 wrote:What is the difference?
If you have a conclusion based on largely incomplete, or to use your word of preference, "unavailable," data makes it inaccurate. To be accurate, it would require all the data.
Wrong. Science 101. The model is statistically accurate for the available data. More data would of been better to further solidify the model but YOU, yes you CANNOT argue its accuracy when you do not have the data to prove them wrong. Get it?RM291946 wrote:I have made no assumptions of the like. I understand what you are saying. You are not grasping that of the things you think are "greener living," many are not, and it is the professional environmentalists who have created that list of what is or isn't "green."
I would not use the term "hardcore" paired with environmentalist when referring to the professional ones. The only thing hardcore they are is hardcore power-mongerers. I will not give up my emoticons. some express a feeling in the same way a facial expression does- better than words.
You can continue with the emoticons I could care less but don't whine when I serve you the same dish. Go buy yourself a flat screen TV before they take away your freedoms. You sound like Bush "dem terrerists wanna take away your freedoms".0 -
what? no..wow guy..if you are creating results based on, say, 10% of the data that could be collected, it's inaccurate and incomplete.
In that quote they are admitting they only tested a very small portion of the area for very short periods of time. You simply cannot go by that. You have to test a majority of the area, for extended periods of time for it to be credible. THAT is science 101.
It's like urban island heating. You can measure the temp in the city and come out with, say, an average of 90 degrees. Especially if you measure it for only 3 days in the middle of summer.
Extend the period of time you are measuring it and the average will change, most likely it will go lower, let's say 85 degrees becomes the average when you extend that 3 days to a full year. Extend the area you measure to include more rural landscape and you will see a dramatic drop. Probably around 72. Cos, you see, cities have higher temps cos they have a lot more black tar surfaces that absorb more heat. Include a wider span of area going out into farm land, and you can plainly see that.
Have a look at the new topic I posted. It is real current hard data, not a computer model predicting only one out of a million potential scenarios for the future.
Go ahead with the emoticons.
I don't sound like Bush.
The environmentalists already attempted to pass laws in California that would regulate what temperature you may set your a/c to. They are currently introducing a bill to try and ban flat screen tv's. What is next? Lap tops? DVD players? Our celly? It's assinine.
And as said, Britain is already seriously entertaining the idea of energy rationing.
I sound like someone who is paying attention.0 -
Read up on the greenhouse effect. Read up on atmospheric CO2 levels. Then read up on the correlation with elevated CO2 levels and global temperatures. It's quite simple science really. A vast majority (approx. 90-95 %) of atmospheric scientists agree man-made CO2 is the single largest cause for the pronounced rise in global temps since the industrial revolution, and more so most recently. Disagree if you want to, I'll agree with the experts. What is there not to understand? :roll:0
-
yeah it seems pretty simple to me too. why the right is spending all this time and energy trying to disprove global climate change as a result of human activity is still escaping megabers wrote:Read up on the greenhouse effect. Read up on atmospheric CO2 levels. Then read up on the correlation with elevated CO2 levels and global temperatures. It's quite simple science really. A vast majority (approx. 90-95 %) of atmospheric scientists agree man-made CO2 is the single largest cause for the pronounced rise in global temps since the industrial revolution, and more so most recently. Disagree if you want to, I'll agree with the experts. What is there not to understand? :roll:
if 90% of the scientists involved are wrong-then no big deal, the human race will survive. If the small minority in the scientific community who think global climate change is not based on human activity-if they are wrong the human race could be extinct very soon.
its a such an obvious call. if we as a race MAY be affecting our climate we should take steps to lessen that impact. if we are not and we take steps anyway..no harm done.0 -
Commy wrote:
yeah it seems pretty simple to me too. why the right is spending all this time and energy trying to disprove global climate change as a result of human activity is still escaping megabers wrote:Read up on the greenhouse effect. Read up on atmospheric CO2 levels. Then read up on the correlation with elevated CO2 levels and global temperatures. It's quite simple science really. A vast majority (approx. 90-95 %) of atmospheric scientists agree man-made CO2 is the single largest cause for the pronounced rise in global temps since the industrial revolution, and more so most recently. Disagree if you want to, I'll agree with the experts. What is there not to understand? :roll:
if 90% of the scientists involved are wrong-then no big deal, the human race will survive. If the small minority in the scientific community who think global climate change is not based on human activity-if they are wrong the human race could be extinct very soon.
its a such an obvious call. if we as a race MAY be affecting our climate we should take steps to lessen that impact. if we are not and we take steps anyway..no harm done.
..but you wouldn't be able to buy a flat screen TV anymore.0 -
gabers- I have read up on them, from real climate scientists, who all say you're full of shit.
Data shows CO2 has risen equally in both atmospheres but the southern one is growing colder. Hmmmm
The most recent data, as provided in my newest thread, shows that while CO2 is still rising, we just took a hell of a nose dive.
still want to repeat the half baked jibberish from James Hansen, go ahead, but noone will take you seriously..
nok- your statement was plain idiotic. It's not about a fuckin flat screen. It's about them taking the first steps toward regressing us back to pre-industrialisation.0 -
RM291946 wrote:
nok- your statement was plain idiotic. It's not about a fuckin flat screen. It's about them taking the first steps toward regressing us back to pre-industrialisation.
You are lucky I will not report your post. You have already called both statements by Commy and I "idiotic". You need to have your priorities straightened. You should also stop posting here and go buy a flat screen TV before they ban them.Post edited by NoK on0 -
yeah. apparently environmentalists are anti-technology. that's news to me.NoK wrote:Commy wrote:ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
I'm guessing funding cleaner energy will take us back to pre-industrialization.0 -
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
You are both going back to the cherry picking. I have already stated how their "clean energy" solution is not really clean and will hurt the poor. Nuclear is abundant and cheap and there is absolutely zero reason for it to not be used. They want more expensive, more damaging alternatives, like windmills that kill birds, and E85 which pollutes 2.5x more than petrol. Not to mention they are expensive, making it so that the poor can afford less.Post edited by Flutter Girl on0 -
if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...RM291946 wrote:
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.0 -
Commy wrote:
if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...RM291946 wrote:
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
Yes.0 -
me too. and to me that's what the debate is all about. why try to discredit these guys who are just trying to do things better, cleaner, more efficient? I'm all for that.RM291946 wrote:Commy wrote:if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...
Yes.0 -
Cos they aren't. They are introducing harmful "solutions" instead, and enforcing policies that make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.0
-
you're talking about Bechtel and international greed. that's something else. that's something called 'profit over people' where large international corporations charge people double for the basic necessities. things like water and power are seen as commodities...when they are necesities. blame Bechtel and capitalism, not environmentalists for outrageous power bills.RM291946 wrote:Cos they aren't. They are introducing harmful "solutions" instead, and enforcing policies that make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.0 -
Commy wrote:
you're talking about Bechtel and international greed. that's something else. that's something called 'profit over people' where large international corporations charge people double for the basic necessities. things like water and power are seen as commodities...when they are necesities. blame Bechtel and capitalism, not environmentalists for outrageous power bills.RM291946 wrote:Cos they aren't. They are introducing harmful "solutions" instead, and enforcing policies that make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.
No, I'm talking about E85 (ever wonder why food, cotton, and soil are getting more expensive?) which is horrid in every which way possible. Those more expensive lightbulbs (being forced on us more and more as they stock less and less of the old bulbs) with mercury in them that also flicker (they are flourescent, after all) which triggers migraines, and also triggers seizures in people who suffer froom seizure disorders. Bamboo, while cheaper, the majority of it is brought here from south America where they hack down rainforest to grow it for us. The list is long..
And most importantly, the largest push behind the theory comes from Friend's of Earth, and environmentalist organisation. They are the ones pushing more expensive forms of energy, while attempting to discredit legitimate cheaper, cleaner forms with lies (nuclear, hydropower..), and really (and so far successfully) pushing for energy rationing. That would be detrimental to us all.
There are lots of good and truely helpfuly things that can be done, but the pro greens are trying to bury them cos they want more control, and the good solutions won't allow for that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help