Guest Franklin Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 dinosaurs 4 lyfe lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 this is a very interesting bit from that Rolling Stones article posted above, "Not long ago (2009), the United States Chamber of Commerce even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there." im just gonna repost that thing from the other thread that i found pretty fascinating, it's an interview with a bioethical philosopher about his article: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 O my, that the USCC even dares to say things like that. That's the government saying: "fuck you world, commercial interests is where it's at." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 however, i've never really heard anyone explain the science, which leads me to conclude that nobody actually knows what they're talking about. There are many scientists who would be happy to explain it to you, as long as you're ok with actually trying to understand science. Because it's climate fucking science. It's not climate plumbing, so don't ask a plumber. It's not climate banking, or climate journalism, it's climate fucking science. Maybe you would like to start with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? And not even the summary for policymakers, but the actual assessment reports? Not huffington post, not fox news, not greenpeace, not Joe the Plumber, not Obama, not Romney, not me. SCIENTISTS. Fucking magnets. You not understanding does not mean it's not real. Some pundit not understanding doesn't mean it's not real. That guy from Coast to Coast thinking it's going to be just like The Day After Tomorrow but with aliens does not mean it's not real A damn near scientific consensus among scientists not working for the oil industry is, on the other hand, not a thing at which to sneeze. But not everything can be easily reduced. Climate science involves some pretty obvious forcing mechanisms (and they are ridiculously obvious), but also some very chaotic systems, and that means it's not something you can explain in a 30 second sound byte. best post in thread. thank fuck you threw down mighty like you just did. you would do well to explain the "science" in a way the average person can understand or else no change will ever be made. and when it comes down to it, the "controversy" is serious enough that one realizes the truth is actually harder than they might have thought to find... "consensus" on which issue? which scientists? you're reallllly trying to tell me that consensus is universal? quite frankly i think that's a load of bullshit. i've heard opinions on both sides, sounding quite rational and reasonable. HOTTEST TEMPERATURE ON RECORD? how long back do the records go, anyway? how long have humans been around? is it true that other planets have been seeing similar rises in teperature? whatever, i'm sure I'm off point here, but the oppressive dialogue does no-one any favors, including the "green corns" or whatever "beat downs" "throw downs" etc provide science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I'll just read this and buttfuck my mind. looks like a good source http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 will the ocean rise 23 feet or 1 foot? will there be tornados? is the earth going to burn to a crisp? 97% consensus: earth burning to a crisp or 97% consensus: exactly like The Day After Tomorrow or do we split that consensus down..? in the end we're not talking about even remotely similar ideas of the truth, therefor my point still stands and fuck you guys, you're idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 @goDel: The United States Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying group that represents business interests with a particular focus on trade, and is not a government agency. They are vitriolic in their pursuit of the "free market" (by free they mean, the US sets the terms and wheeee everyone else go fuck yourselves). @Vamos - the consensus is that human activity is causing climate change. Yes climate change has happened before, but not with the kind of crap that human activity is spewing into the model. Here's a basic primer about climate change, and human activities role in it. 4-climate.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 will the ocean rise 23 feet or 1 foot? will there be tornados? is the earth going to burn to a crisp? 97% consensus: earth burning to a crisp or 97% consensus: exactly like The Day After Tomorrow or do we split that consensus down..? in the end we're not talking about even remotely similar ideas of the truth, therefor my point still stands and fuck you guys, you're idiots nice way of moving the goal posts. Climate change is man-made. Just because scientists haven't yet been able to measure the effects of it in all conceivable ways does not automatically make it invalid. Thanks for getting butthurt about it though. Perhaps you want to continue to distort people's responses on here to fit your unchallengeable world view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 yindeed. Put vast amounts more CO2 in the atmosphere than there usually is and you get consequences (not to mention methane et al). To explain it to deniers in terms that they can understand. What happens when you put an extra shot in your drink for every drink of the night. Your body is a closed system, and so is the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 will the ocean rise 23 feet or 1 foot? will there be tornados? is the earth going to burn to a crisp? 97% consensus: earth burning to a crisp or 97% consensus: exactly like The Day After Tomorrow or do we split that consensus down..? in the end we're not talking about even remotely similar ideas of the truth, therefor my point still stands and fuck you guys, you're idiots nice way of moving the goal posts. Climate change is man-made. Just because scientists haven't yet been able to measure the effects of it in all conceivable ways does not automatically make it invalid. Thanks for getting butthurt about it though. Perhaps you want to continue to distort people's responses on here to fit your unchallengeable world view? lol. shut. up. ! i'm sure vamos isn't "butthurt", and what he was saying is perfectly valid. just as valid as what baph was saying, minus the crazed angry shouting. climate change just happens and has happened anyway, long before there were cars, planes, factories, etc. etc. it's not entirely 100% man-made like you claim it is. like chen said, this time we're (Humans) included in it, and are influencing it/fucking things right up. and like chassis said, we'd do well to stop using fossil fuels anyway. we know what harm they do to the planet and to peoples health, etc. etc. this is a bit like the great gun debate in some ways. are we too far gone already? how can you stop the whole of america and china from using fossil fuels? and do enough people care enough to make the changes needed? personally i think we're all doomed. but the Planet will be fine. Humans have only been here for 'the blink of an eye', and it (Earth) will be here long after Humans have all died out. :two cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 sure the planet will be fine, as for what's living on it. Well if mass species overhaul is your thing. well ... I personally think that you can't not be 'emotive' about this issue. As when it all goes down we'll all be in the same boat, the deniers, the ignorant and those that were moaning about the stupidity of it all. One thing will be clear. That we'll have a lot more claim to your throats once your naysaying dies down. Especially when you try to get us to pay for the insurance on your lost beach houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SecondaryCell Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 [youtubehd]H75pc3UKLds[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 sure the planet will be fine, as for what's living on it. Well if mass species overhaul is your thing. well ... I personally think that you can't not be 'emotive' about this issue. As when it all goes down we'll all be in the same boat, the deniers, the ignorant and those that were moaning about the stupidity of it all. One thing will be clear. That we'll have a lot more claim to your throats once your naysaying dies down. Especially when you try to get us to pay for the insurance on your lost beach houses. who are you actually talking to here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 sirch: please don't tell people to shut up, that's not how discourse happens. Vamos' statements about consensus are not valid, because his original statement was "nobody knows what they're talking about". Then when provided with the argument that there is scientific consensus on human involvement in climate change, he proceeds directly to saying that because there is no consensus about the results of climate change, his first statement (which is not related to his conclusion) still stands. Because his second argument is not in support of his first statement, he's moving the goalposts. Now as to previous climate change compared to what we're undergoing right now: it's difficult to use those previous models to predict what will happen precisely because of the human activity. We don't know if the activity will have minimal impact or if it will have some form of compound effect. Anyways, I urge you all to read the PDF I uploaded, it's from an actual climate scientist, and is a nice easy introduction to the topic for dumb arts majors like me (stupid school making us taking science credits - bah why do i need to know anything about that, knowledge just gets in the way of my belief structure...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 will the ocean rise 23 feet or 1 foot? will there be tornados? is the earth going to burn to a crisp? 97% consensus: earth burning to a crisp or 97% consensus: exactly like The Day After Tomorrow or do we split that consensus down..? in the end we're not talking about even remotely similar ideas of the truth, therefor my point still stands and fuck you guys, you're idiots nice way of moving the goal posts. Climate change is man-made. Just because scientists haven't yet been able to measure the effects of it in all conceivable ways does not automatically make it invalid. Thanks for getting butthurt about it though. Perhaps you want to continue to distort people's responses on here to fit your unchallengeable world view? lol. shut. up. ! i'm sure vamos isn't "butthurt", and what he was saying is perfectly valid. just as valid as what baph was saying, minus the crazed angry shouting. climate change just happens and has happened anyway, long before there were cars, planes, factories, etc. etc. it's not entirely 100% man-made like you claim it is. like chen said, this time we're (Humans) included in it, and are influencing it/fucking things right up. and like chassis said, we'd do well to stop using fossil fuels anyway. we know what harm they do to the planet and to peoples health, etc. etc. this is a bit like the great gun debate in some ways. are we too far gone already? how can you stop the whole of america and china from using fossil fuels? and do enough people care enough to make the changes needed? personally i think we're all doomed. but the Planet will be fine. Humans have only been here for 'the blink of an eye', and it (Earth) will be here long after Humans have all died out. :two cents: relax. im not saying climate change is 100% man's fault. climatic change has happened before man, it would be retarded to suggest otherwise. but the AGW hypothesis is something the scientific community overwhelmingly supports, and those conclusions (based among other things) is that the ENORMOUS Co2 output within the past 150-200 years (Industrial Rev. era basically) is going to have significant effects on the atmospheric makeup. Does that mean oceans are going to flood NYC because men pollute? I don't fucking know, Im not claiming to know that, the only ones that claim this are the ones that have a bone to pick with the concept that man might be responsible for negative atmospheric/climatic effects. what vamos said was valid, if he had started the argument another way, namely, not insinuating that man-made contribution to climate change is "controversial." It's not: what is controversial is those who politicize these findings. If you read the very first post or two I made in this thread, you would see that I challenged the findings of the article the OP posted...it comes off as alarmist, reactionary stuff that tends to add unnecessary fire to a politicized event, which then creates this ridiculously stupid partisan dichotomy of: Scientific consensus on man made contribution to climate change=Secular religious fundamentalists that are only using this to hijack the political realm and force businesses to cut back on carbon emissions. So when confronted with the consensus, its constantly misconstrued as "Global warming=WE WILL ALL BURN INTO ASH WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS" Explain to me how you reach that conclusion from consensus on the AGW hypothesis and other research? Do you understand why people need to be harsh against this kind of dishonest rhetoric? Vamos obviously came in here with his point of view, and skewed every dissenting response in a way as to protect his world view, thus self-validating the continuance of this false "controversy" over global warming. Also what chen said. also, to clarify, vamos is a cool guy with me, but I was pretty peeved (as I think others here were) when he suggested that scientists "don't know what they are talking about." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I'll concede that I'm wrong on every point I made except this: When any "skeptic" is labeled a denier right off the bat, in any conversation regarding global warming, this is a bad sign. Because maybe the person is skeptical of one part of the global warming theory, irrelevant to the consensus, like you said: alarmism, catastrophic collapse. But maybe that serves a purpose of shutting out idiotic hoax theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I'll concede that I'm wrong on every point I made except this: When any "skeptic" is labeled a denier right off the bat, in any conversation regarding global warming, this is a bad sign. Because maybe the person is skeptical of one part of the global warming theory, irrelevant to the consensus, like you said: alarmism, catastrophic collapse. But maybe that serves a purpose of shutting out idiotic hoax theories. the alarmism and collapse overreaction part is the one that i think is healthy skepticism. and im almost positive that if you looked, most scientists that agree with the basic hypothesis have their own skepticism about the specific degrees of man made climatic effects. Thats the grey area, and anyone with common sense would agree that such an outlook is a healthy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 [youtubehd]H75pc3UKLds[/youtubehd] this made me laugh. :) i don't agree 100% with what he's saying but there's a lot of bare bloody truth in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Yeah, lack of competition with grass (and with whatever your household might use to protect the grass) and hot, weird conditions that most plants won't be able to stand. Jurassic plants FTW. Fuck grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 hot weather is just straight up evil, basically. dry hot is sometimes tolerable for me. but this summer, this summer has been intolerable. i need a nuclear winter plz to ensure this never happens again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marf Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 for real, worst summer in my memory. begone you devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.