Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7341 - 7360 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 23, 2013 - 10:55am PT
^^and quite a few of those in that group, agree with the basic consensus on AGW^^
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 23, 2013 - 11:05am PT
Just wanted to make sure others knew that a lot of them agree with the basics of AGW, cuz we know you wouldn't mention it.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 11:28am PT
Back when humans were largely nomadic tribes living off the land and not creating mountains of waste, the earth's biosphere was in balance. Then we began to see the advantage of farming and ranching. Still the Earth was cool with it. Then we realized that by adding chemicals and steroids to the mix, we could increase yeilds and profits, allowing some people to have more productive and leisurely lives. Soon signs of nature's imbalance became apparent- polluted water table, polluted atmosphere, increased diseases traceable to industrial run-off, extinctions, changing wildlife population dynamics.

Humans became concerned and pushed for more regulation of industrial waste. Slowly some reversal of the damage was made. But the companies that had their businesses regulated were not happy and fought every step of the way (and continue to do so) by using disinformation and self-funded studies to "prove" that the experts were wrong. Big Tobacco is the poster child.

Now we're finding that our atmosphere is changing in ways we didn't previously have the ability to understand. And it looks pretty bad for the future of mandkind if nothing is done to change it. Billions of people living in cities needing larger yeilds of food and energy to maintain their existence. And guess who's pushing hard to keep the status quo? Yes,the very same businesses that profit from it.

Do you think that by trying to reduce our "footprints" on the Earth, we might be able to bring the Earth back into a better balance, or should we continue on blithely thinking that we aren't causing any harm...
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 01:54pm PT
zzzz...science bashing...zzz

Cigarettes were conceived, manufactured, and promoted without an assist from scientists.

But you have never let facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant, or making yourself look like a fool. So please, carry on.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
What's with the ED shouting, THE CHIEF????

I imagine your eyes BULGE OUT when you do that lol.

I wasn't aware forcing India, China and the USA to do anything at all, is part of the science of climate change.

But what do I know, I'm a hypocrite and not an egoless reincarnated mongol warri-heheheheheheheheehe-or, shitting white turds and living in harmony with nature like you.

DMT
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
Reading Dingus' post just about made me shoot coffee through my nose laughing.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
I'll give Chief Running Mouth credit for one thing: he may be short, but he can gobble some mighty big turds.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
Smoking has been hazardous for 7000 years. No scientists needed.

Industry using science is the problem, not science itself.

Science was the primary source of learning about the terrible consequences of smoking. Do you give them credit for that?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:52pm PT
what then, is NOT Science?

pooping?
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 02:58pm PT
Please do explain how "YOU" are going to do that, realistically, as the population continues to grow at the rate it currently does?

By supporting legislation aimed at reducing emissions. By pointing out the fallacies that profit-motivated corporations and their paid politicians use to manipulate the undereducated/misinformed sheep in who buy into their Fox-world. By supporting businesses that promote eco-friendly products and avoiding the opposite.

There is a story about a young lady walking along the beach picking up starfish and tossing them back into the ocean after a storm that flung thousands of them onto the beach. Someone came along and said, "what difference does it make; so many are going to die, you can't possibly save them all." She replied as she tossed another back, "Makes a difference to that one." We can't individually fix the problem, but every little bit we do serves to mitigate the damage being done. The more that participate, the larger the effect. Sorry you can't seem to make that connection.

Research performed in an unethical manner such that it produces a predefined result is quickly rejected by the peer review system. The investigators are castigated and lose their ability to secure gov't funding or publish in any journal worth its salt. That's why big tobacco isn't publishing those studies anymore and have to fund anti-smoking programs and print warning labels on their products.

Universities and research foundations are very tightly regulated and scrutinized for breaches of ethics and therefore do not tolerate shady science for fear of the penalties. That's why we can trust the opinions of scientists working in these ivory towers and reject those who don't have strong credentials. Like you.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 03:38pm PT
How are you going to reduce when the population is expanding and growing.

I know it's difficult for you to carry a thought from one line to the next when you're completely blinded by the Fox Illusion, but try and stick with me- by education, legislation, personal choices in concert with the increasing global awareness that something must be done.
squishy

Mountain climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
oh lookie another sh#t show...chef is on a roll this week...
squishy

Mountain climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
much as our ancestors were scientists because they theorized, or by accident figured out that a peeled banana was better tasting then eating with the skin on, scientific method

everything is then Science, everything including all mental analysis is Science, testing and confirming the validity of thoughts and plans of action is Science

what then, is NOT Science?

Norton gives me a boner..
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 23, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
Norton gives me a boner..

not sure but I take it as a compliment

regardless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdNS0B5dDdw
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Aug 23, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
You are one strange, bitter person, The Chief.

What happened in your life that made you so poisonous?

Whatever it was, I'm sorry that you had to go through that.

It's time to let it go.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
69% plus of the FF C02 emitters on this planet DO NOT want anything to do with your UTOPIAN horseshet ideology

Wow. You are thick as a brick. I don't care what the corporations want. I only care what the people want and through legislation, education and personal choice we can force corporations to adopt greener practices. They live & die on investor moods and consumer choice.

It's obvious you're inflexible and think the whole world must bow to those who share your obtuse reasoning, but sorry pal, your philosophy is historically doomed. Good luck. Keep setting up the targets, I need the practice sniping...
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 07:46pm PT
Better yet, you prove me wrong in the long view. Chinese are already dismayed about the horrible pollution in Bejing. The pendulum will swing.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Aug 23, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
You must've watched a lot of tv in your not-so-distant youth. Your need for immediate gratification reflects your shortened attention span.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 23, 2013 - 09:45pm PT
First reading assignment is to go to Top Dog (two locations in Berkeley, two in Oakland) and read the stuff posted to the walls....
http://www.topdoghotdogs.com/propergander.html
probably more serious than your YouTube stuff...

Haha--yep I've read plenty of dawg libertarianism tidbits there.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 23, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
Ed, thanks for your well-stated post (worth repeating, as I've done below).

While the deniers will make the most noise over a post such as this, I believe we non-deniers learn magnificently from the items you post.

So fear not, your efforts here are not for waste!

It's too bad that some people, even when they seem curious, are unable to learn. But then again, as one rock star famously sings,
You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

while there are many who persist in stating that there is no anthropogenic source of climate change, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite well understood at this point, there is no scientific controversy.

Increasing the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases the global mean temperature.

Given that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the largest source of CO2 into the atmosphere it isn't a stretch to see that, on top of all the natural variability of climate, there is an anthropogenic component which is significant, and proceeding at a rate that has no historic counterpart.

The subsequent changes to the climate are difficult to predict precisely because there is no guidance from the past, and in such a case we have to decide whether or not to do something, and if we do something, just what to do. These decisions can be based on many things, I'd suggest that science is certainly a part of that decision making process. One can base it on economic factors. Another basis can be political.

But I'd suggest that the physical description of what the consequences of any of these decisions are is well described by the current climate science, and these only get better with time. The arguments on this are over variability that is now small compared to the magnitude of the changes since the late 1800s.

It is not utopian to suggest that we consider the cost of the alteration of the environment and include it in the use of the agent that is altering the environment, what I'd term "fair pricing," and let the "magic" of the "free market" take over. Failure to manage these commons, which include not only the atmosphere but also the "hydrosphere" (we are pumping ancient ground water at a rate far greater than that water is being replenished), and the biosphere, will have predictable consequences.

Denying the scientific basis of these consequences won't change the outcome, except to accelerate those outcomes where no action is taken. See the North Atlantic fisheries as an example (and the global fisheries for that matter).
Messages 7341 - 7360 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews