# Republican: Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars 'Exactly' Same Temperature



## Explorer (Jul 11, 2014)

Republican Calls Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature



> In a condemnatory speech last week against the Obama administration&#8217;s new Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission regulations, *Kentucky* state Sen. Brandon Smith (R) claimed that man-made climate change is scientifically implausible because Mars and Earth share &#8220;exactly&#8221; the same temperature.
> 
> *Smith, the owner of a mining company* called Mohawk Energy, *argued that despite the fact that the red planet doesn&#8217;t have any coal mines, Mars and Earth share a temperature. Therefore, Smith reasoned, coal companies on Earth should be exempt from emission regulations.*
> 
> ...


Sweet Zombie Jebus... is this really the state of climate denial, that its most fervent supporters are complete idiots? 

I certainly hope those in charge of safety at his company know more about science and engineering than management. 

I feel bad for Kentucky. When you only have an adult literacy rate of 4%, and a science literacy rate likely much lower, you're probably not going to have a lot of legislators fighting to improve the education opportunities, especially if education would undermine Biblical literalism and climate denial...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jul 11, 2014)

I love the "science gaffes" bit at the bottom.


----------



## Xaios (Jul 11, 2014)

His reasoning is probably something like "If Mars is so cold, where's the snow???"


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 11, 2014)

Xaios said:


> His reasoning is probably something like "If Mars is so cold, where's the snow???"



 Let's transition this thread into stupid science reasoning about Mars.

"It can't be negative 81 degrees! How can you have a temperature lower than zero?! That's like my coal company mining "negative 81 tons of coal"!"

"Mars is cold? Ok, genius, then why is it RED?! Red things are HOT! If you think red means cold, you're welcome to touch the burner on my stove!"


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 11, 2014)

I...but...how does an elected official, with a team of supporters say something that is completely contradicted with a .009857158915 Google search?

Moreover even were it true, given the completely different atmospheric conditions and distance from the sun and well... ....ing everything, would still mean we couldn't apply the data from it to regulating our industries. 

Coal is bad. There is no justification for it still being used.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 11, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> I...but...how does an elected official, with a team of supporters say something that is completely contradicted with a .009857158915 Google search?



Well, he does only have to fool his constituents, so if the OP is anything to go by (e.g., 4% literacy rate, etc.) he's probably pulling it off.


----------



## JoeyW (Jul 11, 2014)

Our planet is run by stupid, stupid men.


----------



## Mr Violence (Jul 11, 2014)

USA's never gonna change if states can elect officials like this and allow them to have as much say as someone who's not a f_u_cking moron.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 11, 2014)

Politics is a popularity contest, and we all know that $ makes you much more popular than intellect.

He should just concede climate change and blame it on a youtube video .


----------



## SpaceDock (Jul 11, 2014)

This makes me think of the fracking in Oklahoma. A state with no history of quakes now has the most in the country, but there is no scientific evidence it is caused by injecting wastewater into the ground, wtf?


----------



## MetalGravy (Jul 11, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWdfRRtAs3o


----------



## Given To Fly (Jul 11, 2014)

According to a few forum members locations, there are a few living on Mars. Perhaps they can chime in?


----------



## FretsOnFyre (Jul 11, 2014)

This is just sad. The science is there, but at this rate change will only come when the water is ten feet above our heads.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Jul 11, 2014)

As a registered republican in the state of Florida.

I can tell you not all of us are _this incredulously_ moronic.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Jul 11, 2014)




----------



## JD27 (Jul 11, 2014)

There are morons in every party. Reminds of this one.


----------



## Mr Violence (Jul 11, 2014)

JD27 said:


> There are morons in every party. Reminds of this one.




Wait. Is this ....ing real?


----------



## tedtan (Jul 11, 2014)

Wow, Admiral Willard showed A LOT more composure there than I would have had in that situation.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 11, 2014)

FretsOnFyre said:


> This is just sad. The science is there, but at this rate change will only come when the water is ten feet above our heads.



Actually that's a fact that can't be changed. It will/would happen regardless of man's involvement (involvement as a cause and/or solution). Just look at the history of the Sahara region.


----------



## rockskate4x (Jul 11, 2014)

My family is pretty crazy hardcore republican, and stuff like this litters my facebook newsfeed all the time. I've felt more "right" and more "left" on different issues so I don't really know what I am any more, but this is definitely the sort of thing I hate identifying with. The morons i know...


----------



## JD27 (Jul 11, 2014)

Mr Violence said:


> Wait. Is this ....ing real?


Sadly yes, it's across the board in every aspect of our lives. We do in fact live with big dummies.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 11, 2014)

Yeah, my family is republican too. And there are definitely yahoos on both sides of the aisle. Fortunately, despite the way it might look, I think most of us are much less extremists and idiots than a cursory glance at our leaders would suggest.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 11, 2014)

Goddammit... 

I know so many reasonable people of so many different political ideologies... Why do we only ever hear about the dumbasses?


----------



## Explorer (Jul 11, 2014)

My CEO was the one who broke the Guam story to me. I just couldn't believe it.... *laugh*

I was trying to find an example where Democratic ignorance of science was interfering in a vital issue, as opposed to just fear for the troops in the case of capsizement.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 11, 2014)

Oh, gee... I try to only come on once a day at most, but I just ran across this...

Louie Gohmert Proves God's Existence With One Simple Equation

Short version: Atheists have to believe nothing + nothing = everything, and they're wrong.

Shorter version: Fvcking magnets, how do they work?


----------



## tedtan (Jul 11, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Goddammit...
> 
> I know so many reasonable people of so many different political ideologies... Why do we only ever hear about the dumbasses?



Dumbasses seem to make for drama and, for whatever reason, the average person seems to thrive on drama as if it were as necessary as oxygen, water, or food.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 11, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Goddammit...
> 
> I know so many reasonable people of so many different political ideologies... Why do we only ever hear about the dumbasses?



Probably for the same reason we like to watch Ridiculousness - Watching someone land a basic rail slide on a skateboard is mildly interesting. Watching someone's board slip out, have him land on is nuts on the rail, and then fall over the edge into the bushes? Priceless. These politicians are making the intellectual equivalent of a crotch ride and shrub landing.


----------



## Necris (Jul 11, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Sweet Zombie Jebus... is this really the state of climate denial, that its most fervent supporters are complete idiots?



In a word, yes.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 11, 2014)

JD27 said:


> There are morons in every party. Reminds of this one.




Holy cow, I'm laughing so hard I have tears coming out of my eyes. I love how he basically set up that whole thing like a joke. He spent 5 minutes discussing the size of the island and then goes into the capsize bit! How have I not heard this before? This is priceless! I love how the admiral just rolls with it without a WTF? look on his face.


----------



## ferret (Jul 11, 2014)

I'll just leave this here:

Politician Explains Why Sodomy Is Causing AIDS Due to "Sperm Enzyme"


----------



## redstone (Jul 11, 2014)

JoeyW said:


> Our planet is run by stupid, stupid men.



One must be stupid to think we can. Who could run a planet filled with stupid people thinking they can do it better ^^


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 12, 2014)

The sad part is, being that I am not a Kentucky resident, I cannot vote those people out of office.

The more sad part is, even if I were a Kentucky resident, the chances of successfully voting against the majority to get someone like that out of office seems so slim.

I fear that our representative democracy is not serving the country so well.

The saddest part about this is that those are representatives. Do their constituents think these things to be possible/plausible?


----------



## groverj3 (Jul 12, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I fear that our representative democracy is not serving the country so well.
> 
> The saddest part about this is that those are representatives. Do their constituents think these things to be possible/plausible?



Representative democracy works when you assume a basic level of intelligence for the people voting. I'm not sure in every part of the country that can be safely assumed at all.

It's likely that a significant number of constituents do agree with him. Then again, nobody votes for anyone other than president, so maybe if people showed up at the polls then people like this wouldn't be in office (assuming people actually look up the platform and whatnot that people are running on).


----------



## Edika (Jul 12, 2014)

The subject of this thread angers and disgusts me. These people are dangerous and most obviously completely immoral. I don't believe they are as stupid as people think because they managed to convince their demographic to deny scientific evidence that goes against their goals as mere opinions and fabrications to further their opponents agenda. 

The main problems with representative democracy is that it takes the responsibility of the voters, it takes away their power after the election for 4 years as each government rarely make referendums (is this the correct term in English?) for important decisions that will affect the vast majority of the population and makes them politically lazy and uninformed as the "experts" are dealing with the country's issues. I understand the difficulties of direct democracy and that it can also be influenced by campaigns, as the past has shown, but when things go bad people feel their responsibility in the participation of a decision.

EDIT: It is another thing to be a republican and a conservative in general and it is another thing to be devoid of reason.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 12, 2014)

Looks like we won't have to wait until 2500 for 'Idiocracy' to come true. More like 2020 or 50...


----------



## Explorer (Jul 12, 2014)

I can't believe that the Texas GOP has decided that they know more than the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association regarding so-called "reparative therapy" for homosexuality. Really?


----------



## fps (Jul 12, 2014)

Your country is so full of people who know so little, and are so powerful. I know that a minor version of this happens in a lot of places, but it's bizarre.


----------



## Murmel (Jul 14, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I feel bad for Kentucky. When you only have an adult literacy rate of 4%, and a science literacy rate likely much lower


----------



## vick1000 (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm sure what he meant is the climate change on Mars mirrors that of Earth...at least I hope that's what he meant.

There is scientific proof that all the planets in our system, are mirroring the changes here. If that's true, then one must conclude that man's existance here has little effect on the climate.

I am sure I will be ridiculed, but Climate Change is a fraud. The evidence presented by the UN and Al Gore was manipulated and edited, to support the CO2 theory. In actuality, the data showed that CO2 levels trailed temperature increases in the ice core samples, but you have to zoom in on the graph to see it. There is plenty of data and presentations out there disputing the theory that CO2 is the culprit, and it is largely ignored due to the mass medias bias to the CO2 emission theory, and government's aquisition of control over CO2 that they desire.

The problem is the debate is no longer active, because of ignorant sheep they believe everything they see on TV, which is what the power hungry elite are counting on as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jul 14, 2014)

How the hell did he get in charge of a company, let alone be a ....ing senator. Besides the data provided, are people in that state _really_ that stupid?


----------



## Explorer (Jul 14, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> }I am sure I will be ridiculed, but Climate Change is a fraud. [/B]



You need to keep current on the science. I'm not going to do your research for you, but there is much more documentation and research available now. 

You can stick with going back a few years to make your case, but it just strikes me as being like those who attack evolution (or Darwinism, as some call it) on the basis of old ideas. 

I'm not going to ridicule you, but until the scientists who do the research show clear data in the other direction, I think you won't find the peer-reviewed data to support your hypothesis, that is, that the Earth is not warming due to human agency.

And by research, I mean peer reviewed and found to be good research, not just news releases associated with the Tobacco Institute... er, the oil, gas and political denial machine.

And yes, that person did mean that Earth and Mars are the exact same temperature. That was the best he could pull out. Why? Does that make the thinking look bad on one side?

If it does make it look bad, then I'm sad that more citizens aren't more upset at the huge howling mistakes like this, while trying to find tiny little details which they feel allows ignoring the huge evidence on the other side.

----

However, since you're concerned in even a small way, I'm wondering if you can explain the upside on getting rid of energy and water efficiency rules which would help strengthen the US in terms of dependence on foreign nations... because *here's another deliberate anti-environment story!

House Republicans Protect America From Efficient Light Bulbs, Low-Flow Toilets*


----------



## Explorer (Jul 14, 2014)

A little less "light"-hearted, and showing the political and industry war on pure peer-reviewed science....

How One GOP-Controlled Committee Is Waging A War On Science


----------



## asher (Jul 14, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> I'm sure what he meant is the climate change on Mars mirrors that of Earth...at least I hope that's what he meant.
> 
> There is scientific proof that all the planets in our system, are mirroring the changes here. If that's true, then one must conclude that man's existance here has little effect on the climate.
> 
> ...




I won't ridicule you, but you are completely wrong.

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

Stop harping on Gore and the ice caps because it's easy. The science has moved on quite well since then.


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 14, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> There is scientific proof that all the planets in our system, are mirroring the changes here.


 
Sorry, don't mean to pile on but what does that mean? Link?


----------



## redstone (Jul 14, 2014)

Anyways, the climate change is a red herring eclipsing the chemical pollution and overexploitation issues.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 14, 2014)

Actually global warming (no matter the cause) is a good thing for the earth and it's flora and fauna.

Are the leftist so selfish as to always put current temporary human society ahead of everything else? 

Sure seems hypocritical given their supposed "earth and nature concerns" .

Warmer periods with higher CO2 levels allow for much greater plant and animal populations.
I guess humans are just more important than all that, I guess? 



Was just watching a documentary on The Weather Channel recently that stated our planet would eventually be lifeless do to lack of carbon .


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 17, 2014)

FretsOnFyre said:


> This is just sad. The science is there, but at this rate change will only come when the water is ten feet above our heads.



Nah, they'd probably then reason we need to burn more fossil fuels to pump out the water.


Rev.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 17, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> I am sure I will be ridiculed, but Climate Change is a fraud.



Let's skip science for a second. So you honestly think taking nearly a trillion *barrels* of oil from within the Earth's crust to it's surface and burning it has ZERO affect on the climate?  Just go into your kitchen and turn the stove on for a few minutes and let us know if your kitchen warms up at all - and that's not even talking about Greehouse gasses since we're leaving out science for a moment. 


Rev.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 17, 2014)

Explorer said:


> ... Sweet Zombie Jebus... is this really the state of climate denial, that its most fervent supporters are complete idiots? ...



It's more of the same. If you have to lie, distort, ignore the contradictions, cherry-pick, make crap-up as you go, deny history/reality and argue from authority in order to believe your mythology, then you assume everybody else is just as hypocritical, dishonest, ignorant and will believe you because you're in a position of authority.

When they know that their mythology is a fragile house of cards, and they're used to arguing against any bit of logic/reality applied to their BELIEFS by nit picking details that are misrepresented and taken out of context, they assume every other position is a fragile house of cards and can be brought down by nit picking misrepresented details taken out of context.

Add to that, they're too ignorant to know they're ignorant and too arrogant to even conceive they might be ignorant. Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Ray


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 17, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> Probably for the same reason we like to watch Ridiculousness - Watching someone land a basic rail slide on a skateboard is mildly interesting. Watching someone's board slip out, have him land on is nuts on the rail, and then fall over the edge into the bushes? Priceless. These politicians are making the intellectual equivalent of a crotch ride and shrub landing.



This makes me embarassed that I watch that show now. For me it's just amazing some of the things people are willing to try knowing almost cetainly that they're going to fail and almost kill themselves.

All I can say is thank god these people aren't in charge of making decisions for the rest of us... 

That said, I usually enjoy the blooper reel on skate videos just as much as watching them jump like 15 moving cars and surviving it. (I've never actually seen anyone do that but some ppl are capable of some truly unbelievable shit)


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 17, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually global warming (no matter the cause) is a good thing for the earth and it's flora and fauna.
> 
> Are the leftist so selfish as to always put current temporary human society ahead of everything else?
> 
> ...



We're all interdependent in some way, but I've yet to see a single other creature choose the life of another creature over their own. Sure they'll help if they can in the case of many other organisms, but if their life is also on the line in most cases it seems they'll choose life over heroism. 

Life seems like more of a competiton than the global circle jerk people want it to be when it comes time to make an emotional appeal.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 17, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually global warming (no matter the cause) is a good thing for the earth and it's flora and fauna.
> 
> Are the leftist so selfish as to always put current temporary human society ahead of everything else?
> 
> ...





1. The idea that global warming is good, no matter the cause is pretty absurd and perplexing. What are you basing that on? What's "good" for the planet? "Good" isn't an objective term here so I have no idea what "good" even means. Also, if the cause kills plants...not "good" right? 

2. Leftists 

3. For starters, I'm almost positive you didn't understand the claim in """The Weather Channel Documentary""". That's an absurd claim which, in all my review of climate literature, I've never seen. 

Three choices: You made it up, they got it wrong or you didn't understand it. 


If you'd like I can recommend some good articles to read. There is a lot of misinformation out there and bad interpretations of good science. I'd be more then happy to point out some good places to start when it comes to climate science. 

It's always better to point out flaws in the actual literature then what's reported in pop. science publications or, worse, news sources.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 17, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> 1. The idea that global warming is good, no matter the cause is pretty absurd and perplexing. What are you basing that on? What's "good" for the planet? "Good" isn't an objective term here so I have no idea what "good" even means. Also, if the cause kills plants...not "good" right?



As far as I know, the warmer periods in the past were those with the most biodiversity, so in some way, that might be right. Less permafrost, more rain due to more water evaporating... you could start growing wine in Alaska and Norway... you can find positive effects in almost everything if you look hard enough  Costal cities would still drown, and while barren deserts might become thriving gardens, new deserts will appear elsewhere.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 17, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> This makes me embarassed that I watch that show now. For me it's just amazing some of the things people are willing to try knowing almost cetainly that they're going to fail and almost kill themselves.
> 
> All I can say is thank god these people aren't in charge of making decisions for the rest of us...



Judging from what I see/read in the media, from every single company I worked for... that is sadly not true at all.


----------



## asher (Jul 17, 2014)

SD83 said:


> As far as I know, the warmer periods in the past were those with the most biodiversity, so in some way, that might be right. Less permafrost, more rain due to more water evaporating... you could start growing wine in Alaska and Norway... you can find positive effects in almost everything if you look hard enough  Costal cities would still drown, and while barren deserts might become thriving gardens, new deserts will appear elsewhere.



It's not the temperatures themselves that's necessarily the problem, it's the highly accelerated _rate of change_ that's going to be much more rapid than many parts of our ecosystems can adapt to. Lots of important bits and pieces have fairly narrow viable temperature range and are going to face significant population issues when it exceeds that (look at what's going on with phytoplankton in the NE US). Also included in said narrow temperature ranges are many of our agricultural staples, and that's before we talk about severe weather events and disruptions to weather patterns (California turning into a desert everywhere else). We could see systemic ecosystem collapse when the bottom falls out.

Aside from the CO2 in the air preventing the heat from escaping, the CO2 itself has nothing to do with it.

Now, TRENCH... your leftist claim makes no sense. If you're taking the line that global warming will somehow be good I suppose it makes sense, but if you follow the actual science, all the denial money comes from... big oil! and such. Which funds much of the American right. Saying "fvck our kids, I've got mine and want as much as I can".

That or you're kinda nihilistic and don't give a damn about our species or any other


----------



## ElRay (Jul 17, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually global warming (no matter the cause) is a good thing for the earth and it's flora and fauna.



 (unless you're being facetious and everybody missed it, then )







Remember, all that coal and gas we're burning are from Cretaceous Carboniferous plants that didn't decompose because the bacteria that eat dead plants hadn't evolved yet. [1][2] So, if we burn it all, we'll be back there to pre-Carboniferous (Devonian) average temperatures which are on par with Cretaceous average temperature, and in fact were less variable. [3]

I hope the edits are enough to satisfy the neg-repper who seized on my using Cretaceous instead Carboniferous and decided to leave rep without actually providing correct information instead of replying to the thread.

Ray


[1] Biello, David (28 June 2012). "White Rot Fungi Slowed Coal Formation". Scientific American. Retrieved 8 March 2013.

[2] Waugh, Rob (29 June 2012). "Mushrooms may have stopped coal from forming 300 million years ago - and discovery could be key to creating new biofuels". Mail online. Retrieved 8 March 2013.

[3] Nasif Nahle. 2007. Cycles of Global Climate Change. Biology Cabinet Journal Online. Article no. 295. http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html. Accessed: (July 17, 2014)


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 17, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> 1. The idea that global warming is good, no matter the cause is pretty absurd and perplexing. What are you basing that on? What's "good" for the planet? "Good" isn't an objective term here so I have no idea what "good" even means. Also, if the cause kills plants...not "good" right?
> 
> 2. Leftists
> 
> ...




I didn't misunderstand anything.

Earth will eventually be a lifeless mass of rock and fossil, that is of course if it doesn't get blown up by something else before it goes dead on it's own.
Do you honestly think it will thrive with life and atmosphere forever .


And you're also wrong about global warm periods and elevated CO2 levels.
Both contribute to greater plant and animal diversity. 

Why do you think the hot jungles have far more species of both than the temperate zones? 



Also, in your opening statement you imply that global warming (whatever the cause) is indeed a bad thing.
What if the earth was in a cooling trend, would that be good in your opinion?
Hate to break it to you, but the Earth isn't going to just sit idle and do nothing.
Climate Change has always been a requirement for Earth's evolution.

U.S. policies mean very little anyways to the global climate.
If we're not in a financial and militaristic position to force everyone else to comply with our standards (which we certainly are not ATM), then what difference does it make.

We can't lead by example when we are no longer the leaders. You can't just build a bubble dude.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 17, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I didn't misunderstand anything.
> 
> Earth will eventually be a lifeless mass of rock and fossil, that is of course if it doesn't get blown up by something else before it goes dead on it's own.
> Do you honestly think it will thrive with life and atmosphere forever .



TBH, now I'm a bit confused... How does that relate to global warming? More specifically, the destruction of all CO2 (or depletion)? 

Also...no I didn't think Earth would thrive forever? I also never said it would. That was a bit of a straw man.

This was from The Weather Channel? What was the name of the documentary? 



TRENCHLORD said:


> And you're also wrong about global warm periods and elevated CO2 levels.
> Both contribute to greater plant and animal diversity.




I'm curious to see the source on the biodiversity claim. Simply tossing "Biodiversity Global Warming" into google scholar finds a number of articles that would contradict that claim. However, I give most claims the benefit of the doubt. Science has been wrong before and it may represent newer data. However, it may just be a one off paper that contradicts the main body of literature. 




> We used vegetation distributions from 14 combinations of general circulation models (GCMs) and global vegetation models (GVMs) to project habitat changes and associated extinctions. Because of several major uncertainties in this approach, we also undertook sensitivity analyses in which we varied key factors that we expected to affect our estimates: the GVM used (which make different assumptions about sensitivities to key climatic drivers), abilities of species to tolerate habitat/climatic changes, the extent to which species were restricted to particular biome types, capabilities of species to migrate to keep up with the change, and use of endemic-area relationships rather than species-area relationships (Kinzig & Harte 2000).
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



My point isn't that this one excerpt from an article somehow proves you wrong. Rather, I would need to see your source to see how much more I need to dig into the matter. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Why do you think the hot jungles have far more species of both than the temperate zones?



Not much of a biologist. However the included link mentions:

a. Age of the Forest Biome
b. Large area
c. Geographic isolation due to sea change, glaciation and other factors
d. Benign Character of the physical environment
e. Heterogeneity of the biological environment
f.The previlance of specialized habitats
g. *Energy and production levels*
h. Presence of pathogens
i. Natural Disturbances
j. Mountains as diversity refugees

D. Why is there so much biodiversity in tropical rainforests? « Rainforest Conservation Fund


The answer appears to be far more complicated then simply the greater energy levels present in a warm earth. Again, not a biologist but (as with most things) I imagine the answer is far more complicated then having a warmer environment. 

As a bit of a digression, I'd suspect the sudden increase in CO2 levels is likely harder for biota to adjust too. Take something like a Milankovitch cycle. The C02 gradually rises as the global temperatures increase. Nothing in the ice core records (at least for the past 100,000 thousand years) matches the sudden, observed CO2 increases we note today. This is, however, speculation on my part. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Also, in your opening statement you imply that global warming (whatever the cause) is indeed a bad thing.
> 
> 
> What if the earth was in a cooling trend, would that be good in your opinion?



Well I know for a fact studies have linked cooling trends to a loss of biodiversity. If that's the metric for good then I guess cooling is bad.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Hate to break it to you, but the Earth isn't going to just sit idle and do nothing.
> Climate Change has always been a requirement for Earth's evolution.



But there is a difference between natural cycles of Global Warming/Cooling and anthropogenic climate change. As such, we would need to demonstrate the two types of warming (to make a simple dichotomy) have the same results on the enviroment. Have any previous studies concluded that previous, natural warmings, which also resulted in an increase in biodiversity, had conditions that are mirrored by the present warming. That's a pretty tall order.

Also, to be nit-picky, I also never implied Earth's climate was static. 

For the rest, politics aren't my arena. I merely though the term "leftists" was humorous. It is similar to the term "sheeple" in that it denotes an insane amount of bias.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 17, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And you're also wrong about global warm periods and elevated CO2 levels.
> Both contribute to greater plant and animal diversity.



Warming has contributed to a severe decline in Polar Bear populations, Coral Reefs (bleaching), and various other sea life declination. Add to that, costal floodings that would occur with the rise of sea levels would reduce land areas and lead to a decline in a plethora of other species. Not sure how you're getting that a warmer ocean flooded world leads to more biodiveristy. Also, animals breathe oxygen like we do, not CO2 like plant life. And even plant life need a balance where there isn't too much CO2. Quick Google search and the first few results:

Report Says Carbon Dioxide Rise May Hurt Plants - NYTimes.com

Plants need CO2 to live. So is more of it a good thing? | Climate Central

More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.

You talk about this as if humans don't matter, and I respect that as in the grand scheme of things, meaning the universe, we really don't at this point in time. And sure, life is adaptable and will evolve to adapt to the new conditions. But, yes we should all be concerned because we want to continue on and survive no? I know I do. I'd also like to know that regardless of what species man-made global warming might be beneficial to that all the other species that were killed off weren't at our hands without at least making our best effort with the knowledge of it happening to try and change it.


Rev.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 17, 2014)

^Fair enough. 

You're 100% correct, it's much more complicated than just hot/cold and good/bad.
I guess where I was originally coming from is that point exactly, that the current indoctrinated reasoning is just "earth is getting warmer and that's terrible and the seas are rising will spell our doom and ect...).

I for one certainly do believe man has had an impact on the current warming trend, but who really knows which way we'd be heading without the existence of the fossil-fuel/industrial age. 
Without man's pollution we might even be experiencing global cooling instead of warming.
At least that would be all natural, but none-the-less problematic.

The real problem is man's overpopulation. Without that issue the rest would be much more manageable. 
As I said before, green-policy isn't going to change much without global cooperation, and that's not going to happen now that others have tasted the spoils of first-world pleasures, not to mention the USA has become weak and indecisive on the world stage.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 17, 2014)

Relevant:

The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever | Alternet

"Partisanship 'can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills.'"

Now there's scientific reason to demonstrate how some people can ignore science and reason .


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 17, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> I'm sure what he meant is the climate change on Mars mirrors that of Earth...at least I hope that's what he meant.
> 
> There is scientific proof that all the planets in our system, are mirroring the changes here. If that's true, then one must conclude that man's existance here has little effect on the climate.
> 
> I am sure I will be ridiculed, but Climate Change is a fraud.


 
Yes, you will. 

Really though, the moment where "climate change" became really concrete to me is when I visited the Columbus (Ohio) Zoo & Aquarium. Throughout the penguin exhibit and outside of the aquarium, there are comparative photos of glaciers from different times over the past thirty years. The glaciers ARE shrinking. The temperature has not risen as much as "global warming" naysayers expect because those glaciers are our buffer. Once the buffer of glaciers is gone, the temperature will rise much faster than it has been.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Hmm. I read Trenchlord's post as saying that a hotter environment will be great for lifeforms in general, even though it will be bad for humans. I didn't see it as controversial in terms of accuracy, but instead possibly objectionable if you want humans to continue at the top. 

Given that many species were previously held to certain areas by cold termperatures, and are now being freed, I can absolutely see those species coming to new territories and then finding every possible niche to exploit. It will be like unintentional kudzu, with the bonus of invasive species overtaking established species which are no longer able to compete in a changing environment.

Being as neurotoxic insecticides are now building in the environment (thanks, Monsanto!) and killing off bee populations, thus removing pollination vectors for our food supply in favor of short-term profits, we're really not going to be doing well relatively quickly. 



ElRay said:


> It's more of the same. If you have to lie, distort, ignore the contradictions, cherry-pick, make crap-up as you go, deny history/reality and argue from authority in order to believe your mythology, then you assume everybody else is just as hypocritical, dishonest, ignorant and will believe you because you're in a position of authority.
> 
> When they know that their mythology is a fragile house of cards, and they're used to arguing against any bit of logic/reality applied to their BELIEFS by nit picking details that are misrepresented and taken out of context, they assume every other position is a fragile house of cards and can be brought down by nit picking misrepresented details taken out of context.
> 
> ...



The funniest example of this I remember is Reza Aslan, who is a religious scholar who wrote a book about Jesus. Here's the interview where Fox News engages in the actions which ElRay notes:





Konfyouzd said:


> All I can say is thank god these people aren't in charge of making decisions for the rest of us...



You mean you have to have a good understanding of issues to make decisions for the rest of us?







Konfyouzd said:


> We're all interdependent in some way, but I've yet to see a single other creature choose the life of another creature over their own.



Assuming you don't mean how a parent of any species will fight to the death for its young...

I can think of various cases where dogs fight intruders (humans, bears, etc.) to protect humans. I also believe there are cases where dolphins have fought off sharks and supported humans, helping them get to land. 

I believe there are also documented cases of dolphins going into water which was life-threateningly shallow for them in order to guide a pod of grounded pilot whales back to safe waters. 

I wish I had some handy short name for dolphins regarding their helpfulness, in the same way you can refer capuchin monkeys as "Nature's Butler" or to bats as "Chicken of the Cave"....


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 18, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> We're all interdependent in some way, but I've yet to see a single other creature choose the life of another creature over their own. Sure they'll help if they can in the case of many other organisms, but if their life is also on the line in most cases it seems they'll choose life over heroism.


 
Rats Display Altruism - Scientific American


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 18, 2014)

No Explorer... When did I say I was qualified to make decisions for everyone else? Quit grasping at straws man. I said thank god the ppl that make it on to Ridiculousness aren't law makers. Wanna nitpick something else?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 18, 2014)

In the rat example was the rat freeing the other rats in danger? Did my post not address the fact that most species will help IF THEY CAN? In cases of immediate danger I've seen plenty of animals leave other animals--to include ones just like themselves behind to inevitably die.

Structure that same experiment such that the main rat's life is actually in danger as opposed to simply being placed in a cage and see how focused he is on freeing the other 30.

And this... From the article YOU posted...



> ...but both he and Mason point out that the jailbreaking rats might only be trying to silence their cohorts&#8217; distressing alarm calls.



Sounds like even they believe that the rats may have just been trying to shut the others up. Sharing of the chocolate at that point is merely a byproduct of there being multiple rats. 

Unless you can ask them why they did it, you still have nothing.


----------



## asher (Jul 18, 2014)

@TRENCH:

Going to re emphasize the really key part.



asher said:


> it's the highly accelerated _rate of change_ that's going to be much more rapid than many parts of our ecosystems can adapt to.



Are we in a global warming trend anyways? I think there's some evidence the planet has slowly been warming. But *slowly*. We've accelerated that change at an incredible rate since we started burning coal en masse in the 1700s, and it's happening much too fast for most forms of life to adjust to.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 18, 2014)

^ I don't disagree with this at all.
Who knows what trend we'd be in if it were not for the industrial age.







I do think people underestimate the climatic interaction between "what lies beneath", meaning the millions of cubic miles of molten lava, and also above, being the sun.
The combination of those things can make man's interference seem like nothing. 

If we're going to attempt to stomp out pollution then we better get back to the world domination stuff, because right now we haven't the global weight to force the worlds biggest polluters to change their practices at all.

I say forget the globalist one-world-order shit and start regaining more control again, and to do that you have to untie the hands of our US economy.
Free up the mining regulations. Open the pipelines and frak away. Hell, lets just take over Iraq and keep the oil $ for ourselves, it's not like Iraq is a great society worth saving lol.

As I said before, we can't lead by example if we can't lead at all.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 18, 2014)

Ooohh... Don't wanna touch that one. This is where I exit stage right...


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 18, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> If we're going to attempt to stomp out pollution then we better get back to the world domination stuff, because right now we haven't the global weight to force the worlds biggest polluters to change their practices at all.



Has nothing to do with world domination, it has to do with *wealth* domination. Those who sell all the oil the world depends on to live our modern day lives are supremely rich. Wealth buys power, hands down. And when you have the wealth and power you have the power to fight very strongly against anyone trying to change the system and affect your stream of income or power. 

What will really change the current situation is if someone or some group invented a much cleaner form of energy that could be sold *at the same price or lower* than current fuels and meet the availability demands of the world's requirements. IMO, that's the only true way out of this situation.


Rev.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 18, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> No Explorer... When did I say I was qualified to make decisions for everyone else? Quit grasping at straws man. I said thank god the ppl that make it on to Ridiculousness aren't law makers. Wanna nitpick something else?



Dude, I was only offering that because there are definitely those who believe they are qualified to make decisions for others, even if they haven't a clue of what situations those others face. I was being mildly lighthearted.

Sorry if you took offense.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 18, 2014)

Right...


----------



## ElRay (Jul 18, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> ... There is scientific proof that all the planets in our system, are mirroring the changes here. If that's true, then one must conclude that man's existance here has little effect on the climate. ...


Sorry, you're wrong. Studies show that the global warming is anthropogenic. Cite your source*S* that the entire solar system is experiencing the same levels of planetary warming.


vick1000 said:


> ... The problem is the debate is no longer active, ...


Again, wrong. There's a tremendous consensus that the global warming we're experiencing is anthropogenic, the reason the debate isn't as active is because the only naysayers are ignorant politicians. Again, cite your sources that show that 97% of all research papers are wrong and the entire scientific community is in on the scam.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 19, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Let's skip science for a second...



We don't even need to do that. Burning coal, oil, etc. puts CO2 back into the atmosphere that was sequestered during the Carboniferous era. It's basic logic that if the atmosphere starts to resemble the atmosphere back then that the weather would too. That's the logical inference. 

Now the science comes in to support the obvious hypothesis or refute it. There's plenty that supports the obvious hypothesis and there's none that refutes it. The only way to make claims that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a hoax is if deconstruct, cherry-pick and take things out of context. Basically all of the reality denying skills it takes to for any mythology. Small wonder Anthropomorphic Global Warming deniers correlate very strongly with the religious right in the U.S.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 19, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> ... And you're also wrong about global warm periods and elevated CO2 levels. Both contribute to greater plant and animal diversity.  ...


You do realize that the periods of greatest evolution rates were the harshest periods and that massive rates of new species also means massive rates of extinctions, right?


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 19, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> In the rat example was the rat freeing the other rats in danger? Did my post not address the fact that most species will help IF THEY CAN? In cases of immediate danger I've seen plenty of animals leave other animals--to include ones just like themselves behind to inevitably die.
> 
> Structure that same experiment such that the main rat's life is actually in danger as opposed to simply being placed in a cage and see how focused he is on freeing the other 30.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, the rats not showing food aggression over the chocolate is a huge thing. The rats choose to share the chocolate without fighting over it.

That altruistic behavior has been documented as existing. A change that would endanger lives is unethical. Thus, I find your suggestion to be the opposite of showing empathy toward other living things.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 19, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You do realize that the periods of greatest evolution rates were the harshest periods and that massive rates of new species also means massive rates of extinctions, right?



Yes, agreed. 




It's actually a good example of Earth's self-regulation/coping abilities, that man would pollute terribly enough to alter the atmosphere, and then the planet responds in such a way to reduce our ability to support such large numbers thereby reducing the total number of polluters .
It's like earth karma man (Tommy Chong voice required).


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 19, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Republican Calls Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature
> 
> Sweet Zombie Jebus... is this really the state of climate denial, that its most fervent supporters are complete idiots?
> 
> ...



So you've established that this person is pretty much ignorant of the simple facts of science. Its actually quite sad that an elected official of this stature would even try to make such a correlation. That said, it appears as though you've done some research regarding the Earth's climate so have you actually found any factual information that shows a direct correlation between the activities of its human inhabitants and an overall increase/decrease of the average temperature of the planet?


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 19, 2014)

^^^


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 19, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Actually, the rats not showing food aggression over the chocolate is a huge thing. The rats choose to share the chocolate without fighting over it.
> 
> That altruistic behavior has been documented as existing. A change that would endanger lives is unethical. Thus, I find your suggestion to be the opposite of showing empathy toward other living things.



And your example has nothing to do with what I originally asked for that reason. I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the original point. And at this point it really no longer matters considering it was only vaguely related to the OP in the first place.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 19, 2014)

On reading the following post, I remember now that someone brought up the idea that all the planets are warming, although there is no evidence to support that assertion. I didn't look to see who it was, but here is a decent link which brings together sources for this. 

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

I look forward to reading peer-reviewed studies showing how the other planets are warming as Terra is. Until there are such, I have my doubts that the science is there.



Lance Thrustgood said:


> So you've established that this person is pretty much ignorant of the simple facts of science. Its actually quite sad that an elected official of this stature would even try to make such a correlation. That said, it appears as though you've done some research regarding the Earth's climate so have you actually found any factual information that shows a direct correlation between the activities of its human inhabitants and an overall increase/decrease of the average temperature of the planet?



If you dispute any of the following, be sure to address that specific point:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing amounts cause more retention of heat in a planet's atmosphere.

Humans have started releasing increasingly larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere in a huge amount, as seen by using measurements of Terra's atmosphere over its history. 

We can have further discussion based on those points, if you agree with them. If you don't, it will still be interesting discussion, but more about tinfoil hat fashions.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> If you dispute any of the following, be sure to address that specific point:
> 
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing amounts cause more retention of heat in a planet's atmosphere.
> 
> ...



I understand the premise. Its already laid out quite extensively online. However, as I asked previously I was just wondering where can I find the actual scientific evidence to validate your points? 

I mean first of all maybe you can point to me online where you've found the evidence that CO2 has increased "in a huge amount" over Earth's history and how exactly how were these measurements were taken and who performed the measurements? Was this done by MIT or something?

Just curious how this works is all.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 20, 2014)

It's all about the ice-cores really. That's the main thing we have to go on.
Detailed atmospheric measurements from a planetary-grid of positions is a new thing really.
I'm not even sure to what extent they use satellites to measure/monitor various aspects.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 20, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I mean first of all maybe you can point to me online where you've found the evidence that CO2 has increased "in a huge amount" over Earth's history and how exactly how were these measurements were taken and who performed the measurements? Was this done by MIT or something?



As for the "huge amount", for example:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
From 336 to 393 ppm in about 40 years is a massive increase. It doesn't sound much (0,039% of the atmosphere if I'm not mistaken), but I would be very suprised if such a change would lead to no results at all. Also, as far as I know, CO2 is only a part of the problem, methane is even worse as a greenhouse gas and is produced in rapidly rising amounts because millions seem to think eating 2 lbs of meat per day is cool.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 20, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> So you've established that this person is pretty much ignorant of the simple facts of science. Its actually quite sad that an elected official of this stature would even try to make such a correlation. That said, it appears as though you've done some research regarding the Earth's climate so have you actually found any factual information that shows a direct correlation between the activities of its human inhabitants and an overall increase/decrease of the average temperature of the planet?


 
If you are requesting a study that directly tests and correlates the hypothesis, "man burns fossil fuels, greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels cause change in atmospheric weather and/or temperature," that is a tall order.

However, using inductive reasoning to extrapolate simple changes to a global level, we can see these premises.

1) When organic material burns, carbon is released to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

2) Fossil fuels are materials that are very high in carbon.

3) Carbon dioxide traps heat energy in an area better than the typical composition of atmospheric air.

From these easily testable hypotheses, we can infer that on a global level, if fossil fuels are burned, carbon is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps more heat than the typical air mixture in the environment. Therefore humans burning fossil fuels does trap more heat energy in earth's atmosphere.

I stress that it is humans burning fossil fuels, because to my knowledge, other animals on earth do not typically start fires.

The fact that anyone even tries to argue the above simple logic just makes me feel like this: 

edit:

I see that Explorer beat me on stating most of this.

My point is that there are two types of reasoning necessary for a large scale; deductive (for example, the scientific method) and inductive (inferring the unknown from the known).

Running an experiment to have every person on earth burn a set amount of fossil fuels, then having an identical planet as a control group where no fossil fuels would be burned would be impossible based on the fact that we do not have two populated planets to use. Thus, scientific experiment done properly with a control group is not possible for this situation.

Inferring the knowledge we have to a larger scale is necessary. Unfortunately, this takes the ability to logically move the results of a small experiment to a larger scale. It seems that many people are unwilling or unable to conceive of this.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 20, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's all about the ice-cores really. That's the main thing we have to go on.
> Detailed atmospheric measurements from a planetary-grid of positions is a new thing really.
> I'm not even sure to what extent they use satellites to measure/monitor various aspects.



So obviously when any layer of ice was formed and a particular bubble of air was trapped we can make the assumption that the bubble is in fact a representative of the constituents of the surface air in that region at that time. Would that be a correct assumption?


----------



## SD83 (Jul 20, 2014)

More or less, from what I understand. Given that a glacier is kind of rather lifeless desert, I think it's save to assume that the constituents of the air at one point are pretty much identical to those ten or hundred meters away. Which would not necessarily be true in regions with more life, the air under a massive tree might be a different one than that over a stretch of barren rock.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 20, 2014)

SD83 said:


> More or less, from what I understand. Given that a glacier is kind of rather lifeless desert, I think it's save to assume that the constituents of the air at one point are pretty much identical to those ten or hundred meters away. Which would not necessarily be true in regions with more life, the air under a massive tree might be a different one than that over a stretch of barren rock.



So logically how would we know what the CO2 levels were in the upper atmosphere at that particular snapshot in time?


----------



## SD83 (Jul 20, 2014)

My guess would be: not at all. We could only compare the ground levels and upper atmosphere levels we can currently measure, try to find out & understand how those are connected and then apply that theory to previous situations. One could call that nothing more than an educated guess, but I don't think CO2 or oxygen etc. changed their general behaviour in the last billion years, so I assume it would be rather accurate. I'm no scientist, though.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 20, 2014)

SD83 said:


> My guess would be: not at all. We could only compare the ground levels and upper atmosphere levels we can currently measure, try to find out & understand how those are connected and then apply that theory to previous situations. One could call that nothing more than an educated guess, but I don't think CO2 or oxygen etc. changed their general behaviour in the last billion years, so I assume it would be rather accurate. I'm no scientist, though.


 
Interesting. Because to the best of my knowledge I've only been able to find research that indicates we've only been measuring CO2 levels at the surface for the last several decades.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 21, 2014)

Lance, I did a quick search on only .edu and .gov sites to get to primary sources and to eliminate bloggers and such.

Here's a good peer-reviewed study.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

I think you're currently angling to say that gases don't spread much in the gaseous atmosphere, and therefore ice samples are an inaccurate measure of CO2 levels. If so, I'd appreciate your data on how quickly gases propagate in our atmosphere. 

Please, no bloggers. I'd prefer primary reviewed sources from atmospheric and climate scientists. That way, we both know that we're relying on those who actually know this stuff, right? Better that than we rely on armchair reasoning.

Thanks!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2014)

"Doc, it hurts when I do this."
"Don't do that."


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 21, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> LOL...Rigtalk...you'll like it there


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Lance, I did a quick search on only .edu and .gov sites to get to primary sources and to eliminate bloggers and such.
> 
> Here's a good peer-reviewed study.
> 
> ...



I'm not angling for anything. CO2 molecules are heavier than Oxygen molecules though so if you were trying to establish that CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere were elevated and destabilizing the natural equilibrium of our normal greenhouse effect that sustains our existence wouldn't it make sense to spend the last several decades measuring it up there instead of on the summit of a volcano and several other areas which might have elevated levels of CO2 anyway? 

As far as your link goes the researchers are quoted here as saying: 

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today  and were sustained at those levels  global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland"

That said, if there is a direct correlation between CO2 and the climate I'm kind of curious why you think we don't have those same conditions currently?


----------



## Explorer (Jul 22, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I'm not angling for anything.



Oh, okay! Thanks for saving me the effort!

I'll tell you what, though... I'll give you positive rep if you list three sources of information on CO2 levels on Earth over the epochs.

I'll also give you positive rep if you can give some good information on how much fossil fuel has been consumed, with the CO2 released from its bound form, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

Then you will have a little information about how much CO2 has been added just through human activity, and can start to think through your own questions. Wouldn't that be better than trusting politicians?

Again, stick to good primary sources, not bloggers and politicians.


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 22, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Oh, okay! Thanks for saving me the effort!
> 
> I'll tell you what, though... I'll give you positive rep if you list three sources of information on CO2 levels on Earth over the epochs.
> 
> ...


 
Climate Change 1 Syllabus

Part 2.7.0 is relevant but the whole thing is a good read.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

and finally this last one, slightly off topic but helpful

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery - Scientific American


I don't think anyone can acurately estimate how much greenouse gases have been released by man's activity since the Industrial Revolution but the concensus is probably near 100% agreement that it has risen sharply. 

Volcanoes, Greenhouse Gases, and Temperature Change

The first graph in the above article shows the CO2 levels for the past 650K years. Its never been higher than today.

more stuff to read

Climate Change: Evidence


----------



## SD83 (Jul 22, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> That said, if there is a direct correlation between CO2 and the climate I'm kind of curious why you think we don't have those same conditions currently?



Time. During the last ice age, it took Europe thousands of years to freeze over. A snowflake will almost instantly melt in 5°C, a massive 10t block of ice might take months or years. And the glaciers are melting rapidly, the smaller they get, the faster they melt. I've seen them disappear, vast areas, in just 20 years. And they were way larger on pics of my parents.
Give the current situation a few hundred or thousand years, and I guess we will see no ice on the poles, drasticly higher sea levels etc. Well, not exactly we, but...  From what I understand, it just might happen a lot more rapidly than it did in the past.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 22, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Time. During the last ice age, it took Europe thousands of years to freeze over. A snowflake will almost instantly melt in 5°C, a massive 10t block of ice might take months or years. And the glaciers are melting rapidly, the smaller they get, the faster they melt. I've seen them disappear, vast areas, in just 20 years. And they were way larger on pics of my parents.
> Give the current situation a few hundred or thousand years, and I guess we will see no ice on the poles, drasticly higher sea levels etc. Well, not exactly we, but...  From what I understand, it just might happen a lot more rapidly than it did in the past.



I don't doubt that you've seen glaciers disappear. On the other hand, in other areas many glaciers have actually increased and new ones are forming.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 22, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Oh, okay! Thanks for saving me the effort!
> 
> I'll tell you what, though... I'll give you positive rep if you list three sources of information on CO2 levels on Earth over the epochs.
> 
> ...



That's just it, I'm unable to find any unbiased sources of information that don't come from organizations that have an agenda that is skewed for or against the subject of CO2.

Obviously, without the greenhouse effect on planet Earth the temperatures would be much colder. This has happened many times and resulted in ice ages that lasted for thousands of years. 


"Added"? By your wording it sounds like you're trying to make an inference that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution all the CO2 ever liberated has accumulated in the atmosphere. Was that your intention? This kind of goes against the Conservation of Mass.

In addition, you posted a link to an article whereupon I read it and I asked you a question about it. I was curious if you could respond to that please?


----------



## Explorer (Jul 22, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> "Added"? By your wording it sounds like you're trying to make an inference that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution all the CO2 ever liberated has accumulated in the atmosphere. Was that your intention? This kind of goes against the Conservation of Mass.



Wow, you're now claiming you don't understand how carbon locked in fossil fuels is then added to the atmosphere?

If you have carbon locked up in a fuel (say coal), that carbon is not in the atmosphere. When you burn the coal, the carbon in the fuel binds with the oxygen and creates CO2, which then is in the atmosphere.

I honestly don't believe you're that stupid. If you want to make that case, go ahead, as I'll be quite amused. 

Now I know you're trolling, so I won't waste any more time. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## SD83 (Jul 22, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I don't doubt that you've seen glaciers disappear. On the other hand, in other areas many glaciers have actually increased and new ones are forming.



Source? For all the sources I can find state exactly the same, that the vast majority of glaciers (in terms of overall mass) shrink massively. There is a small number of glaciers that grow, which I guess would be rather due to increased snowfall rather than reduced temperatures (from what I heard, Antarctica is one of the dryest places on earth, for example), still all the sources I can find point to the global mass of glaciers decreasing.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I don't doubt that you've seen glaciers disappear. On the other hand, in other areas many glaciers have actually increased and new ones are forming.


 
Can you site any sources that glaciers are increasing?



Lance Thrustgood said:


> That's just it, I'm unable to find any unbiased sources of information that don't come from organizations that have an agenda that is skewed for or against the subject of CO2.


 
Did you try Google Scholar for academic sources?


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 23, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Wow, you're now claiming you don't understand how carbon locked in fossil fuels is then added to the atmosphere?
> 
> If you have carbon locked up in a fuel (say coal), that carbon is not in the atmosphere. When you burn the coal, the carbon in the fuel binds with the oxygen and creates CO2, which then is in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



My point was you made it sound as though every single molecule of CO2 reintroduced into the atmosphere since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is still somehow lingering in the atmosphere. If that was the case I'm sure the CO2 level would be considerably higher than 0.0397%.

That said, we know from the law of the Conservation of Matter/Mass that the Earth is with the exception of meteors landing and spaceships leaving we have a mostly closed system here where matter changes states but that's about it. At one time in history that carbon in the coal that you speak of was in another form. 

And regarding the link you posted. I would appreciate if you would please take the time to answer my question.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> That's just it, I'm unable to find any unbiased sources of information that don't come from organizations that have an agenda that is skewed for or against the subject of CO2.



Then you don't know how to research and you are ignorant of the current body of evidence, so you have no position to argue.

Also, based on what you have written, it's fair to say that you're throwing-out a lot of unbiased research and/or summaries of research because you've ignorantly labeled the source as "biased" because it doesn't suburb to the "The truth lies somewhere in the middle" or "We need to give equal time" fallacies. Truth is truth, regardless of opinion and the data shows what the data shows. There is no need to diminish what the data shows because somebody's BELIEFS are at the other end of the spectrum. Likewise, there's no need to give BELIEFS equal time, if they're not supported by reality. I can claim that average global temperatures are inversely related to the number of pirates in the world, but that nonsense doesn't deserve equal time any more than Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxers, Creationists, Moon Landing Deniers, Russell's Teapotists, etc.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I don't doubt that you've seen glaciers disappear. On the other hand, in other areas many glaciers have actually increased and new ones are forming.



Ah, the "Everything isn't exactly the same every place, so therefore I can ignore what's convenient." fallacy. You've already admitted you're ignorant on the topic. You can cherry-pick, create strawman arguments, etc. and then claim that the prevailing consensus makes no sense to you, therefore, it must be incorrect, all you want. It won't change reality that you're wrong and choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

Here's a simple summary of a journal article showing that (a) Overall sea levels have risen and (b) it's anthropogenic: Team finds sea level rise in western tropical Pacific anthropogenic

Please, try to educate yourself instead of cherry-picking information that is either flat-out wrong, or taken out of context so support your Confirmation Bias.

Ray

Ray


----------



## redstone (Jul 23, 2014)

An increase in precipitation (due to global or local warming) can cause the glaciers to grow... temporarily.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 23, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Then you don't know how to research and you are ignorant of the current body of evidence, so you have no position to argue.
> 
> Also, based on what you have written, it's fair to say that you're throwing-out a lot of unbiased research and/or summaries of research because you've ignorantly labeled the source as "biased" because it doesn't suburb to the "The truth lies somewhere in the middle" or "We need to give equal time" fallacies. Truth is truth, regardless of opinion and the data shows what the data shows. There is no need to diminish what the data shows because somebody's BELIEFS are at the other end of the spectrum. Likewise, there's no need to give BELIEFS equal time, if they're not supported by reality. I can claim that average global temperatures are inversely related to the number of pirates in the world, but that nonsense doesn't deserve equal time any more than Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxers, Creationists, Moon Landing Deniers, Russell's Teapotists, etc.
> 
> Ray



Data? All the data that I've seen is very limited and often times very subjective. There has only been continuous monitoring since 1958 in Mauna Loa which is actually an active volcano. On the other hand there are many other places where ground level CO2 levels have been measured for a certain amount of time but certainly not long enough to even establish a baseline. Certainly there has been limited study of CO2 in the upper atmosphere where the actual greenhouse effect takes place as well.

Then there are all the evidence of the ice cores. Again, I'm not sure how you even establish the actual date of a particular section of ice and I've always noticed that part of the study is always left out. Also left out is exactly how you take a tiny air bubble trapped in the ice and actually detect the minuscule amount of CO2 levels in that. I guess you're just supposed to take that on faith alone.

Everything I've ever read indicates the general consensus among the scientific community is that CO2 levels became elevated when large scale coal mining began and this coal was burned to fuel the Industrial Revolution. This was further compounded by the extraction and burning of petroleum products as well. So this is the trigger event that increased CO2 levels and caused the greenhouse effect to increase.

So then, if that's the case then how does the scientific community explain why there have been so many eons where there were extremely elevated temperatures with very little ice on the entire planet and then during other times there were ice ages occurring that lasted for tens of thousands of years and yet there was no human activity?


----------



## ElRay (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> I don't doubt that you've seen glaciers disappear. On the other hand, in other areas many glaciers have actually increased and new ones are forming.



Trivial to find an unbiased web site that explains the cherry-picked nonsense that lead to this bogus claim:
Are glaciers growing or retreating?
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Ice isn't melting
Why do glaciers lose ice?
Why Greenland's ice loss matters
Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use

Oh, and here's a few on your "whole solar system is warming" nonsense:
What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system
Global warming on Jupiter
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming?

You really should read Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined before you come where and try to deny Global Warming.

Here's a good graph for you:




Cosmos had a great illustration on this. NDT was walking a dog on a beach. He walked in a straight line while the dog zigzagged back and forth. They then zoomed back and highlighted his straight path and the dogs zig-zag with a trend path. They then explained how NDT's path is the trend (climate) and the dog's path is the individual measurements (daily weather).


----------



## Edika (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Then there are all the evidence of the ice cores. Again, I'm not sure how you even establish the actual date of a particular section of ice and I've always noticed that part of the study is always left out. Also left out is exactly how you take a tiny air bubble trapped in the ice and actually detect the minuscule amount of CO2 levels in that. I guess you're just supposed to take that on faith alone.



Since I really haven't followed all the discussion and apparent controversy on climate change I'll just address these comments. When writing a scientific paper or an article on a less scientific journal, blog and website your space is limited and the text has to be specifically written for the target audience. It's not that these parts are left out, but these are techniques that were evolved and published in previous years that are either common knowledge for their peers in scientific journals or too complicated and require too much space for non scientists to understand. Usually in scientific papers the measurement techniques are mentioned and references are given if they aren't well established. If I had to write a detailed explanation of the techniques I used to convince my peers I would need more than 2 to 10 pages that most scientific articles are written and that would mean that they aren't really my peers since they don't understand the field they're specialized in.
In non scientific journals references are given some times but most of the times the simplified graphs and explanation is what most people are interested and will understand. It is implied and expected that if people are interested in specifics aspects of the research they can either ask questions or do a more thorough search.

So in short, if you want to understand how the measurement techniques work, do a search in particular for them and you'll find the science behind them. I don't consider being skeptic a negative quality but I do believe you're doing it wrong.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 23, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> So then, if that's the case then how does the scientific community explain why there have been so many eons where there were extremely elevated temperatures with very little ice on the entire planet and then during other times there were ice ages occurring that lasted for tens of thousands of years and yet there was no human activity?



I probably shouldn't post anything, but...

The two are not mutually exclusive. Human activity is seen as affecting the rate of change within the natural system and, in extreme cases, being capable of reversing that trend line altogether.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Jul 23, 2014)

So much win here. Says it all.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 24, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You really should read Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined before you come where and try to deny Global Warming.


 
I didn't "come where" to question whether or not there have been dramatic fluctuations in the temperature & climate of Earth and the composition of the atmosphere. What I do question is the data gathering methods used on both sides of the argument.

Gathering a miniscule amount of CO2 data taken from a few positions on the surface of Earth from 1958 until the present and then comparing this data to the composition of the atmosphere in an air bubble from an ice core of an indeterminate age to establish what the composition of the upper atmosphere doesn't fulfill the simple requirements of the scientific method steps to actually determine a provable conclusion. In the steps below for the scientific method all I've really seen occur is steps 3 & 6.

*1. Ask a Question*
*2. Do Background Research*
*3. Construct a Hypothesis*
*4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
*5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
*6. Communicate Your Results* 

Bottom line is the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old. There have been many periods of both dramatic cooling and warming plus much higher levels of both oxygen and CO2. The entire recorded history of human civilization is only around 5000 years and we've been warming up from the last ice age that was as recent as roughly 10,000 years ago. My main point is both sides of the Global Warming/Climate Change argument are more motivated by profit & greed than true science. 

There are many subjects related to the history of the Earth that the scientific community has no clue about. The cause of the fluctuations in temperature and climate of Earth are just one of many. As such, I believe passing off the tiny amount of CO2 data we have as real science is simply ridiculous and on the other hand I also believe that extracting and consuming hydrocarbon products is a basically a criminal operation that definitely pollutes our water, soil and air and that we need to find another alternative.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 24, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> My main point is both sides of the Global Warming/Climate Change argument are more motivated by profit & greed than true science.



In that, I totally agree. The situation with "green energy" in Germany/the EU is rather absurd right now. They banished lightbulbs. Seriously. All you can buy these days are those energy saving lights, neon tubes etc. However, in every business park, every company is illumination their logos with like 15.000 watts floodlights all night long, every church or otherwise extraordinary building is illuminated all night long... there is a fee on electricity that is more or less used to finance more solar panels etc., everyone has to pay that fee, except for the really big companies, because if they would have to pay, jobs might be lost. On the other hand, Germany, having a bunch of influential car manufactorers lately stopped an european law that would force those car manufactorers to reduce the CO2 output of their cars... it's all about money. No one in the governments, the big companies, and most likely not even half of those in those ecology groups gives a shit about people starving due to desertification, costal cities drowning, dying coral reefs due to warmer water, entire cities being annihilated by extrem storms etc. Money & power.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 24, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Stuff



Without wanting to sound curt, if you believe scientists haven't fulfilled the requirements of the scientific method the, you are either ignorant of the science or being flat out deceitful.

If people want I can post half a dozen papers that demonstrate long term climatic trends and how the current trend is anomalous. But we all know the deniers won't bother reading a single word. People think an engineer that appears on FOX or a blogger who took a bio class are more qualified then academics with decades of peer-reviewed research under their belt. 

This isn't about political sides. I get you want to appear to be "in the middle" but it doesn't fly. RESEARCHERS have easily met their burden of proof, a thousand times over. NON-SCIENTISTS don't understand or don't want to.

Does anyone actually have a substantial argument? One that isn't cherry picking or just misunderstanding a paper? I'd be curious to see it. The last argument was debunked by googling three keywords.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 24, 2014)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> So much win here. Says it all.




"You don't need people's opinions on a fact."

Quoted for truth.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 24, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> Without wanting to sound curt, if you believe scientists haven't fulfilled the requirements of the scientific method the, you are either ignorant of the science or being flat out deceitful.
> 
> If people want I can post half a dozen papers that demonstrate long term climatic trends and how the current trend is anomalous. But we all know the deniers won't bother reading a single word. People think an engineer that appears on FOX or a blogger who took a bio class are more qualified then academics with decades of peer-reviewed research under their belt.
> 
> ...



Again, the scientific method requires data which is sadly lacking though. We understand that the carbon cycle is a natural part of the Earth's natural system and that without it there would be very little plant life and the temperature would be much colder.

In addition, as I've already stated we know that during the 4.54 billion years of Earth's history there have been many extremes in climate where there was virtually no ice anywhere on the planet and then quite the opposite where there have been five known ice ages lasting thousands of years each and at least one was considered a "snowball Earth". 

Needless to say, Earth has been warming up for around 10,000 years independent of any human activity and if the past is any indication of the future its likely that the climate will continue to heat up until at some point an unknown event will occur and the Earth will be plunged into yet another ice age.

And yet somehow our small insect minds think this has something to do with our behavior so its an easy sell to get "modern" people to buy "carbon credits" and many other hypocritical money gathering schemes. Personally I'm a lot more concerned with the exotic toxic chemicals that we've made in laboratories that never naturally existed, hazardous nuclear waste and all the genetic manipulation that is going on with our food and ultimately ourselves than I am in levels of CO2 that may or may not be elevated and their correlation to global climate changes that have repeatedly occurred despite human intervention.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 24, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Blah, Blah, Blah ... I don't know ... Blah, Blah, Blah ... I don't understand ... Blah, Blah, Blah ... It doesn't make sense to me ... Blah, Blah, Blah ... Therefore it can't possibly be true.


Talk about arrogance from ignorance. Dunning-Kruger much?


----------



## ElRay (Jul 24, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> ... My main point is both sides of the Global Warming/Climate Change argument are more motivated by profit & greed than true science ...



The data overwhelmingly shows that not only is global warming happening, it is anthropogenic. Put your arrogance in check, read, and actually learn something. Read the info at: Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined it's an easy to understand and straightforward site to read. Especially the "Newcomers" and "Most Used Climate Myths" sections.

Sorry, you are ignorant and willingly remaining so. You keep dragging-out the long refuted cherry-picked, data taken out of context nonsense. You're no different than Holocaust, Moon Landing, Evolution, Safety of Vaccinations, deniers.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 24, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Again, the scientific method requires data which is sadly lacking though.


 
Have you read a single one of the supplied links during this thread?


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 24, 2014)

ElRay said:


> The data overwhelmingly shows that not only is global warming happening, it is anthropogenic. Put your arrogance in check, read, and actually learn something. Read the info at: Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined it's an easy to understand and straightforward site to read. Especially the "Newcomers" and "Most Used Climate Myths" sections.
> 
> Sorry, you are ignorant and willingly remaining so. You keep dragging-out the long refuted cherry-picked, data taken out of context nonsense. You're no different than Holocaust, Moon Landing, Evolution, Safety of Vaccinations, deniers.


 
Ok. I'll admit that I'm "ignorant". So therefore logically the inference that you're making is that you yourself are knowledgeable and well educated. I understand. So then, if that's the case then it shouldn't be a big problem at all for you to explain to me how the previous interglacial periods occurred despite there being no human activity to release CO2?


----------



## Edika (Jul 25, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Again, the scientific method requires data which is sadly lacking though. We understand that the carbon cycle is a natural part of the Earth's natural system and that without it there would be very little plant life and the temperature would be much colder.
> 
> In addition, as I've already stated we know that during the 4.54 billion years of Earth's history there have been many extremes in climate where there was virtually no ice anywhere on the planet and then quite the opposite where there have been five known ice ages lasting thousands of years each and at least one was considered a "snowball Earth".
> 
> ...



What I find peculiar is that you are dismissing the research done on climate change yet you claim as facts that there have been fluctuations of temperature and CO2 levels during the earth's history as facts. Might I ask where is the science and proof that this has actually happened and what scientific methods and measurements is it based on? Because as you mentioned we have been measuring CO2 since 1958 in some point on the earth and extrapolating the results from results on ice core measurements. So there must be some other way that accurately portrays what you're saying that these environmental scientists could benefit from.

Not trying to be sarcastic or aggressive but if you dismiss the research of hundreds of scientists then you need scientific proof to disprove them. The chemicals, waste and toxins are a major concern too and it is good that you pay attention to that, as most people only know what TV tells them. That is until their skin falls off or their water ignites.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 25, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> if that's the case then it shouldn't be a big problem at all for you to explain to me how the previous interglacial periods occurred despite there being no human activity to release CO2?



Why don't you research for yourself rather than ping pong back to someone to have to waste their time explaining these things to you. You live in the day and age of the internet, it's so ridiculously easy to find scientific and academic papers on the topic. Plus, there's been a ton linked already in this thread. Why are you still asking others to explain it to you? You probably still won't believe it anyhow.


Rev.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 25, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You're no different than Holocaust, Moon Landing, Evolution, Safety of Vaccinations, deniers.



This is why I no longer waste any of my time trying to argue against such people, because they simply won't listen no matter how much proof you provide. Take the moon landing deniers - other nations have already proven with their own lunar orbiters and such that the Apollo 11 site exists. Even NASA's LRO has photographed it, but is that good enough? No, of course not. You can fly any of those people to the moon and show them the site in person and I can guarantee they'd have some explanation to refute it - like, "These were planted here recently by robotic landers to fool us".


Rev.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 25, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Again, the scientific method requires data which is sadly lacking though.



Would you mind being a bit more specific here. What specifically in terms of data are we lacking?

I don't want to throw out random bits of info that may address the various points you raised. I'd be happy to look for data on a specific issue you feel hasn't been adequately addressed.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 25, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Why don't you research for yourself rather than ping pong back to someone to have to waste their time explaining these things to you. You live in the day and age of the internet, it's so ridiculously easy to find scientific and academic papers on the topic. Plus, there's been a ton linked already in this thread. Why are you still asking others to explain it to you? You probably still won't believe it anyhow.
> 
> 
> Rev.



I think I'm double posting but the answer is probably Milankovitch Cycles (in addition to other long term climate forces).


----------



## ElRay (Jul 25, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> ... So then, if that's the case then it shouldn't be a big problem at all for you to explain to me how the previous interglacial periods occurred despite there being no human activity to release CO2?



It is a big problem because you're intellectually lazy and willfully+arrogantly ignorant. People have already given you the answers, but you cherry-pick, strawman, deconstruct, etc. all the standard solipsist games.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 25, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> ... In the steps below for the scientific method all I've really seen occur is steps 3 & 6.
> 
> *1. Ask a Question*
> *2. Do Background Research*
> ...



Because you're willfully ignorant. It's the deniers that are being unscientific. Here's another link from that site you refuse to study because it would shatter your pre-conceived notions:
Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo​
This is why you're getting slagged. You're not even trying.


----------



## Necris (Jul 25, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually global warming (no matter the cause) is a good thing for the earth and it's flora and fauna.
> 
> Are the leftist so selfish as to always put current temporary human society ahead of everything else?
> 
> ...



Most people have already covered everything I had to say, however, I would like to request a point of clarification.

What time scale are you thinking on, exactly? 

The concern of extinction in plant and animal species due to rapid climate change is a real one, any species which cannot adapt to new conditions within short time scales is likely go extinct.
(I'd also put forward that being concerned that plant and animal species may go extinct due to rapid climate change isn't contradictory to a claim of being concerned for nature and the planet. Maybe you think differently. )

If, to throw out a random bullshit number, 5% of the plant and animal species on the planet went extinct tomorrow due to climate change how long do you personally believe it would take before speciation within the remaining flora and fauna on the planet occured to the point that not only was the original 5% loss reversed, but there were actually more species existing on the planet than there were before? Extinctions would continue to happen during that time frame too.

Your stand point is essentially "Increased global temperature and carbon levels are a good thing because eventually the damages they cause may be reversed or mitigated."


Also, as a side note, nice try ascribing anthropocentric thought to "leftists" and "leftists" alone. The belief that humans are superior to all other species and are the only entities that truly matter not only on this planet but in the entire universe is a viewpoint that you will find held by people of all political leanings, in any culture, from any background and of any religion. 

For example, a woman from your side of the political spectrum: 

"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view." - Ann Coulter


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 25, 2014)

^^^


1. Time scale makes no difference to the point, but for your sake I'll say thousands of years.

2. I agree.

3. No reason to speculate "bullshit numbers" anyway.

4. My stance is essentially; Higher surface temps and CO2 levels can be a good thing for some species, just as it is bad for others.

5. Again I agree. I was obviously using sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy coming from all the "nature boys" on the left, for example Mr. Alfred Gore preaching his greenism while circling the globe in his fossil-fuel guzzling private jet, and dealing with his big-oil $ partners at every landing .
Yes though, there's plenty of hypocrisy on all sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 25, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> for example Mr. Alfred Gore preaching his greenism while circling the globe in his fossil-fuel guzzling private jet



While I'll agree with the irony of such circumstances, let me ask... how do you propose Al Gore to travel the world to spread his word? By canoe? Nah, that won't work. By car? Nope, that won't get him very far. So wait... he has to fly in one of those huge fuel guzzling airplanes that are bad for the environment? Oh no, please say it ain't so. Well he can at least fly coach rather than private plane right? Um... this man was the vice president of the United States of America . He couldn't fly first class without being hounded constantly the entire trip, not to mention security risks from economy class citizens wanting to get their angry words in with the ex-vice pres. Seriously, how do you think he could possibly travel any other way? I mean, really think about it.


Rev.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 26, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> While I'll agree with the irony of such circumstances, let me ask... how do you propose Al Gore to travel the world to spread his word? By canoe? Nah, that won't work. By car? Nope, that won't get him very far. So wait... he has to fly in one of those huge fuel guzzling airplanes that are bad for the environment? Oh no, please say it ain't so. Well he can at least fly coach right? Um... this man was the vice president of the United States of America. He couldn't fly first class without being hounded constantly the entire trip, not to mention security risks from economy class citizens wanting to get their angry words in with the ex-vice pres. Seriously, how do you think he could possibly travel any other way? I mean, really think about it.
> 
> 
> Rev.



 
That's easy. He should just stay home and shut up . He's as bad as Clinton, one lie after the next. Just like the current figure head, and the last one for that matter.

De-rant


----------



## Necris (Jul 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> 1. Time scale makes no difference to the point, but for your sake I'll say thousands of years.
> ...




You appear to be ignoring that genetic diversity is lost due to extinctions caused by climate change. That is directly at odds with your statement that climate change regardless of cause is good for the earths flora and fauna and overall diversity.

Until the genetic diversity that was lost due to extinctions resulting from climate change is regained the overall effect of climate change on diversity of flora and fauna is negative. Can it be safely assumed that the diversity lost will eventually be regained and the current number of species on the planet will be exceeded at some point the future? I don't know. 

Thousands of years as a time scale isn't particularly specific, which isn't good because time scale absolutely does make a difference to your point. Even 50,000 years won't reverse the negative effects of rapid climate change on overall genetic diversity. We're looking on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

Timescale also makes a difference in terms of usefulness.
How useful is this line of thinking, "It's good (or at least ok) because in a few hundred thousand years the initial negatives will finally have been reversed and we'll probably only be seeing positives from that point forward"?

Lets speculate about real estimates based on actual data then, you won't like them compared to my bullshit numbers, they're higher. How does 18-24% (35% was their maximum, lets assume, for no real reason, that's off the table) of all species on the planet "commited to extinction" by 2050 due to changing climates sound? That's a lot more than my 5%, but at least it isn't tomorrow I guess.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 26, 2014)

Necris said:


> You appear to be ignoring that genetic diversity is lost due to extinctions caused by climate change. That is directly at odds with your statement that climate change regardless of cause is good for the earths flora and fauna and overall diversity.
> 
> Until the genetic diversity that was lost due to extinctions resulting from climate change is regained the overall effect of climate change on diversity of flora and fauna is negative. Can it be safely assumed that the diversity lost will eventually be regained and the current number of species on the planet will be exceeded at some point the future? I don't know.
> 
> ...




Your numbers are all speculative. In a system that's constantly rolling around those numbers are just guesses.

It's good to be concerned about pollution and man-enhanced natural climate change, but what's the plan to get the world on board and compliant to the greeny regulations?


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Jul 26, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Seriously, how do you think he could possibly travel any other way? I mean, really think about it.
> Rev.



Ferdinand Magellan sailed around the Earth in wind powered vessel...

That would be far to passé for the creator of the internets though.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Your numbers are all speculative. In a system that's constantly rolling around those numbers are just guesses.



The same way Lance was/is doing his best to dodge around the actual science while cherry picking a morsel here and there, I have to ask for some evidence of error regarding the science and evidence building to support the hypothesis regarding our currently being in Earth's sixth extinction event. 

BTW, I'm tickled that I only see bits and pieces of Lance being lazy, since I only see quotes from him appearing in the posts of other members since I added him to my ignore list. He had the honor of being the thumb (rhymes with "dumb") on the handful of people I ignore, bringing the number to a mighty five.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 26, 2014)

Explorer said:


> The same way Lance was/is doing his best to dodge around the actual science while cherry picking a morsel here and there, I have to ask for some evidence of error regarding the science and evidence building to support the hypothesis regarding our currently being in Earth's sixth extinction event.
> 
> BTW, I'm tickled that I only see bits and pieces of Lance being lazy, since I only see quotes from him appearing in the posts of other members since I added him to my ignore list. He had the honor of being the thumb (rhymes with "dumb") on the handful of people I ignore, bringing the number to a mighty five.



We asked for sources and evidence for those theories over and over again. And while there are tons of links to studies etc. that seem to prove human influence on global warming (sure, they might be wrong, but the chance for that is rather low from what I read), I can't remember anyone giving even one link to a reliable source that hints to the opposite. 
"Anthropogenic global warming is just a theory? Well, so is gravity and I don't see you jumping out of buildings."


----------



## SD83 (Jul 26, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> [...]In the steps below for the scientific method all I've really seen occur is steps 3 & 6.
> 
> *1. Ask a Question*
> *2. Do Background Research*
> ...



1. Does even a slight change in atmosphere change the global climate? And if so, is mankind changing the atmosphere? 

2. Collect data from ice cores, fossiles etc. Use layers of volcanic ashes, from impacts of meteors etc. as a rough guideline for dating the ice cores, radiocarbon dating for the fossiles, erosion etc. for dating other stuff. 

3. "The answer to the question is yes."

4. We don't have a second earth for the experiment. Which is we should stop it. Even if the chances were 50/50, even if it was 80/20 against anthropogenic global warming, we should not risk ....ing up the only planet that can sustain human life. Just because chances of getting shot are only 1/5 russian roulette is still stupid. But I guess you could test the influence of certain gas compositions in laboratories. And I guess that has been done.

5. From my understanding, what we know so far is that there have been warmer times in the past and there have been colder times. We also know that by and large, these times are in concordance with higher and lower CO2 levels. And that both CO2 levels and global average temperature are rising these days. And that mankind is burning increased amounts of fossil fuel. Coincidence? Unlikely.

6. State point 5, have people complain. Ann Coulter stating that it is mans obligation to utterly destroy Gods creation (how dare this woman call herself a Christian?). Others stating 
"You're wrong." 
"Why?" 
"You didn't give any sources for your conclusion." 
"Here they are." 
"They are wrong." 
"Why?" 
"They are." 
"Do you have any other ideas?"
"No. But you are wrong."
Seriously, it is one point to question information. Question everything. But as long as you can not bring up ANY information as to why the theory is flawed, and the supporters bring up tons of information, all this information leads to the conclusion that the theory, while possibly flawed, is most likely correct. I mean, if you shoot 10 humans in the head and 10 of those 10 die, you will admit that a bullet to the head is most likely deadly, wouldn't you?


----------



## Necris (Jul 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Your numbers are all speculative. In a system that's constantly rolling around those numbers are just guesses.
> 
> It's good to be concerned about pollution and man-enhanced natural climate change, but what's the plan to get the world on board and compliant to the greeny regulations?




No. If my numbers had no data, evidence or research backing them, _then_ they could be described as speculation. 

Hundreds of thousands or even millions of years as a time span for speciation is accepted science backed by the fossil record, there can also be rapid periods of growth within that time frame as well.


I have no idea what the plan would be to get the rest of the world on board considering the United States itself isn't on board.

Something you seem to be unaware of, judging by these posts.




TRENCHLORD said:


> If we're going to attempt to stomp out pollution then we better get back to the world domination stuff, because right now we haven't the global weight to force the worlds biggest polluters to change their practices at all.
> 
> I say forget the globalist one-world-order shit and start regaining more control again, and to do that you have to untie the hands of our US economy.
> Free up the mining regulations. Open the pipelines and frak away. Hell, lets just take over Iraq and keep the oil $ for ourselves, it's not like Iraq is a great society worth saving lol.
> ...





TRENCHLORD said:


> If we're not in a financial and militaristic position to force everyone else to comply with our standards (which we certainly are not ATM), then what difference does it make.
> 
> We can't lead by example when we are no longer the leaders. You can't just build a bubble dude.




Until 2006 when we were surpassed by China the United States was the worlds biggest polluter. Now we're the second biggest, right after China. 
The entirety of the EU combined comes next, then India, then Russia.

We've paid lip service to the idea of reducing carbon emissions but haven't actually backed it up with action; we signed the Kyoto protocol but never actually ratified it (merely signing on does nothing), we felt the provisions were too demanding and wanted lower targets for reductions in emissions. Our standards weren't as strong as the ones EU countries had. Clearly the United States has no intention of leading by example, or leading at all. 

Even Russia ratified the thing, but we couldn't do it.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> The same way Lance was/is doing his best to dodge around the actual science while cherry picking a morsel here and there, I have to ask for some evidence of error regarding the science and evidence building to support the hypothesis regarding our currently being in Earth's sixth extinction event.
> 
> BTW, I'm tickled that I only see bits and pieces of Lance being lazy, since I only see quotes from him appearing in the posts of other members since I added him to my ignore list. He had the honor of being the thumb (rhymes with "dumb") on the handful of people I ignore, bringing the number to a mighty five.




Actual science? The only actual science that truly exists regarding climate change is the observation that over the entire estimated 4.5 Billion year history of the Earth there have been many periods of extreme warming and cooling each of which lasted hundreds of thousands/millions of years. That said, not a single scientist has ever been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what actually caused any of those events. Knowing those facts alone; that all the knowledge we've gained about ancient climates is simply guesswork then we can make a logical conclusion that we don't have any clue as to what's currently happening regarding the future of Earth's climate.

One thing we can establish unequivocally is that we are in a warming period called the Holocene Epoch that started around 11,700 years ago and that before that was the Pleistocene Epoch which lasted from 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago during which was a time of a cooler climate marked by repeated glacial cycles. So what brought Earth out of this cooler climate 11,700 years ago? Certainly it wasn't any anthropogenic impact. Focusing on what actually caused this is the key to understanding and predicting future trends in climate if that our intention. However, currently what I see is nothing more than guesswork & shoddy junk science being used for the sole purpose of validating a particular agenda that allows the same corporations who extract coal, oil and natural gas from the Earth to further profit by adding another layer of taxes.

What's simply amazing is how easily the majority of Americans in particular have been educated and conditioned to believe in this giant fabricated lie of anthropogenic CO2. The irony contained within this thread is how hypocritical most of you are when it comes to changing your lives to fit into your perceived paradigm. If you truly believed in anthropogenic global warming you wouldn't be sitting in your cozy chair banging away on a computer trying to debase & discredit idiots like me. All of you are consumers just like me. You rent/own a house, you drive a vehicle every day, you consume energy playing electric guitar, and you do many other things that go against everything the globalist climate change agenda is against. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If all of you believe so strongly in anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change then put your money where your mouth is. Sell all your electric guitars and gear and go acoustic only. Quit your job, sell your house & cars and go squat out in the forest in a teepee and eat berries & grubs. Unless any of you are willing to do that then you're no different than me... you just think you are in your own private thoughts.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 2, 2014)

I'll try to be reasonable, but I found that post insulting.



Lance Thrustgood said:


> Actual science? The only actual science that truly exists regarding climate change is the observation that over the entire estimated 4.5 Billion year history of the Earth there have been many periods of extreme warming and cooling each of which lasted hundreds of thousands/millions of years. That said, not a single scientist has ever been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what actually caused any of those events. Knowing those facts alone; that all the knowledge we've gained about ancient climates is simply guesswork then we can make a logical conclusion that we don't have any clue as to what's currently happening regarding the future of Earth's climate.



There is a HUGE difference between "guessing" and "guessing based on the limited data that is available". As said before, even if there was only a 20% chance that we cause global warming, I think we can't afford to ruin the only planet available for us based on a 20/80 chance. Sure, it wouldn't render earth uninhabitable, but a lot more uncomfortable, if "only" for a couple of centuries.



> However, currently what I see is nothing more than guesswork & shoddy junk science being used for the sole purpose of validating a particular agenda that allows the same corporations who extract coal, oil and natural gas from the Earth to further profit by adding another layer of taxes.


Says the guy who failed to bring up ANY science for his side of the argument, no matter how shoddy. And: How does that logic work? I'm not sure about Canada or the USA, but where I live the only one profiting from "another layer of taxes" is the country. The companies rather suffer, as people by less due to rising cost.



> What's simply amazing is how easily the majority of Americans in particular have been educated and conditioned to believe in this giant fabricated lie of anthropogenic CO2.


OK, this last bit is just pure bullshit. You can go ahead and call anthropogenic global warming a lie, I think no one can 100% say you are wrong, but as for CO2... just no. Burning oil (also wood) releases CO2, which can be measured. Sure, some of that is reabsorbed by plants, but since mankind is also very good at annihilating such ugly abominations as rainforests... and from what I see, this "lie" is much less accepted in the USA than for example in Europe. MUCH less.



> The irony contained within this thread is how hypocritical most of you are when it comes to changing your lives to fit into your perceived paradigm. If you truly believed in anthropogenic global warming you wouldn't be sitting in your cozy chair banging away on a computer trying to debase & discredit idiots like me. All of you are consumers just like me. You rent/own a house, you drive a vehicle every day, you consume energy playing electric guitar, and you do many other things that go against everything the globalist climate change agenda is against.


It is not about going back to stone age. A lot of us use their bikes for their way to work or the grocery store. Which, as a side effect, is also good for the overall health and would avoid a lot of traffic jams if more people did it. We use electricity made with wind or solar energy, instead of coal (20% of all electricity in Germany, 30% in Austria, Norway 43%, USA 13%). We drive cars which use 6 l per 100km instead of 14. We live in properly insulated buildings so we need less than half as much energy for heating than we would in older buildings (or for cooling). Buy food that is produced locally and not on the other side of the earth. etc. None of that would make anyone suffer, exept for those who sell oil and coal. 
But, assuming anthropogenic global warming would turn out to be real (even if you call it a "guess", you don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger because you "guess" it isn't loaded, do you? Especially if not pulling the trigger would not have a single disadvantage for you?), those small things would make a huge difference. 

By the way, you still fail to bring up a single link to any study that points to anthropogenic global warming being unlikely. Not a single one. Do you have any data backing up your claims? Or do you just call bullshit on the whole thing because you just don't want to believe it? Or would burning less coal & oil endanger your job? If you want to argue, make sure you can give some data that supports your argument. If you don't have such data, why don't you? Did you not search hard enough? Do you not care? Or does such data not exist? Either of those cases would show you're either and idiot, mentally retarded or younger than 8 or less. It's still kinda fun arguing, but if you have no information supporting your side AND no information against the other side, sticking to that side seems "a bit" stupid.

So much for "being reasonable". If that was too much, feel free to neg rep or ban me or whatever. I can only tolerate a certain amount of ignorance and self chosen stupidity.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Aug 2, 2014)

So my truck gets like 8-11mpg. Oh well. Does it make me a terrible person for not feeling guilty about it?


----------



## asher (Aug 2, 2014)

Lance, explain to me how taxes levied against a coal company translate into additions l profits for said coal company.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 2, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> So my truck gets like 8-11mpg. Oh well. Does it make it a terrible person for not feeling guilty about it?



Only if you believe in the whole global warming stuff and try to burn as much fuel as possible to heat the world as much as you can. Maybe  You didn't go to your car dealer and say "I want to buy the truck which has the least mpg", did you?


----------



## asher (Aug 2, 2014)

There are a huge variety of ways one can be environmentally conscious. Cars are certainly important and easy to focus on, but there are so many other things you can do.

Now, if you roll coal...


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Aug 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Now, if you roll coal...



Rolling coal isn't the same emissions as a gas engine.

Diesel smoke is actually soot, like what's at the bottom of a fire place. The smoke falls, and doesn't rise to the atmosphere. That much i do know from research.

Sure, rolling coal makes someone an asshole, to most folk, but it's really not that bad environmentally.


----------



## StevenC (Aug 2, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Rolling coal isn't the same emissions as a gas engine.
> 
> Diesel smoke is actually soot, like what's at the bottom of a fire place. The smoke falls, and doesn't rise to the atmosphere. That much i do know from research.
> 
> Sure, rolling coal makes someone an asshole, to most folk, but it's really not that bad environmentally.



Then again, it's a waste of fuel, which most would argue is bad for the environment.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 2, 2014)

The soot might be bad if you inhale it, but it's not the solid/visible parts of the exhaust that are (most likely, from all the studies I have seen/heard of) the problem but rather those you don't see (ie CO2, sulfur oxides or, not from fuel but rather farms etc. methane, which is supposed to be much worse than CO2).


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 2, 2014)

SD83 said:


> I'll try to be reasonable, but I found that post insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, I don't think you got the memo. You're not supposed to use the term "Mentally Retarded" anymore. Speak with your local liberal activists for further clarification on this matter. 

All the empirical evidence you need can be provided by cracking open an encyclopedia down at your local library. Simply reading about the extinction of the dinosaurs, plate tectonics and volcanism as it relates to the formation and continuous climate changes that occur over Earth's 4.54 billion years should be sufficient to contrast/compare to miniscule sliver of time that humans have been extracting/burning hydrocarbon based energy.


----------



## asher (Aug 2, 2014)

And the fact that I can't feel anything moving and everything in the sky rotates around is totally enough empirical evidence to prove the Earth is stationary and everything orbits us.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 2, 2014)

asher said:


> Lance, explain to me how taxes levied against a coal company translate into additions l profits for said coal company.




Lets discuss that. There is currently no nationwide federally mandated carbon tax in the USA. However, given the way things are going it will be implemented at some point in the future and given the model of Obamacare it will be administered by a private entity. It would be stupid to believe anything but a seemingly unrelated subsidiary of coal/oil/gas would be tasked with this important job... wink wink...

Just like the lobbyists for big pharma/hmo pressured the good ole boy politician's into the "Affordable Healthcare Act" and shoved it down our throats you can be sure big coal/oil/gas will be behind any carbon tax. You can bet on it.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Your numbers are all speculative. In a system that's constantly rolling around those numbers are just guesses.
> 
> It's good to be concerned about pollution and man-enhanced natural climate change, but what's the plan to get the world on board and compliant to the greeny regulations?


 
Statistical inference is not the same as speculation. Inference is based on mathematical data, speculation is far more qualitative.

As far as getting the rest of the world on board, why not lead by example?


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 2, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> So my truck gets like 8-11mpg. Oh well. Does it make me a terrible person for not feeling guilty about it?


 
Only feel bad if you intend to keep driving it forever and never get your injectors cleaned to improve mileage.



Lance Thrustgood said:


> Actual science? The only actual science that truly exists regarding climate change is the observation that over the entire estimated 4.5 Billion year history of the Earth there have been many periods of extreme warming and cooling each of which lasted hundreds of thousands/millions of years. That said, not a single scientist has ever been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what actually caused any of those events. Knowing those facts alone; that all the knowledge we've gained about ancient climates is simply guesswork then we can make a logical conclusion that we don't have any clue as to what's currently happening regarding the future of Earth's climate.
> 
> One thing we can establish unequivocally is that we are in a warming period called the Holocene Epoch that started around 11,700 years ago and that before that was the Pleistocene Epoch which lasted from 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago during which was a time of a cooler climate marked by repeated glacial cycles. So what brought Earth out of this cooler climate 11,700 years ago? Certainly it wasn't any anthropogenic impact. Focusing on what actually caused this is the key to understanding and predicting future trends in climate if that our intention. However, currently what I see is nothing more than guesswork & shoddy junk science being used for the sole purpose of validating a particular agenda that allows the same corporations who extract coal, oil and natural gas from the Earth to further profit by adding another layer of taxes.
> 
> ...


 
Many of us have made lifestyle changes and at least TRY to be environmentally conscious. Your idea of living in teepees is not realistic as one would still have to own land on which to do that.

Many of us have cut back on driving, cut back on electricity costs, reuse and recycle when possible. The attitude that the earth is a playground/trash pit for us is obsolete. Lance, your ideas are obsolete and, as many have stated, not backed by any substantial data.

SD83, your response was reasonable. I have noticed Lance's responses become more strawman arguments and attacks rather than real debate.



SD83 said:


> The soot might be bad if you inhale it, but it's not the solid/visible parts of the exhaust that are (most likely, from all the studies I have seen/heard of) the problem but rather those you don't see (ie CO2, sulfur oxides or, not from fuel but rather farms etc. methane, which is supposed to be much worse than CO2).


 
*Might* be bad if inhaled? Speaking as an ASCP certified histologist, anthrachotic residues do cause lung cancer. Lung cancer is bad. Therefore breathing soot from some asshole rolling coal IS bad. There is no excuse for that *ever.*



Lance Thrustgood said:


> Actually, I don't think you got the memo. You're not supposed to use the term "Mentally Retarded" anymore.


 
Lance, in addition to my above mentioned qualifications, I worked in mental health and do have a degree in psychology. Many of your responses could be ascribed to coming from a retarded person (that is to say, a person with an intelligence quotient two standard deviations below the norm).

I do not know if you are really that mentally deficient or if you're suffering from some psychosis where the realities of the world that we see do not match the "realities" that you are imagining.



> All the empirical evidence you need can be provided by cracking open an encyclopedia down at your local library. Simply reading about the extinction of the dinosaurs, plate tectonics and volcanism as it relates to the formation and continuous climate changes that occur over Earth's 4.54 billion years should be sufficient to contrast/compare to miniscule sliver of time that humans have been extracting/burning hydrocarbon based energy.


 
No one is denying that carbon dioxide has ever been released from the earth into the atmosphere. During the Carboniferous period, much of the carbon contained in the atmosphere was absorbed into flora and fauna. Those life forms died, became buried by natural sedimentation, and the carbon they contained became coal.

The coal (and other hydrocarbon fuels) being harvested and burned releases said carbon back into the atmosphere. Match that up to your claims about heating and cooling cycles in the atmosphere.

Unless you do have a mental disability, you should see some link there between temperatures during the Carboniferous period, the burial of coal, the extraction and burning of coal, and rising carbon levels/temperatures now.


----------



## asher (Aug 2, 2014)

They won't be because it's a direct threat to their bottom line. This is why they're funding all the anti-climate research.

Not to mention that the energy industry and health care are extremely different setups. Big Pharma and Health Insurance industries are NOT independent regulators and are not functioning as regulators. Regulation is still federal.

So, how does imposing a tax on yourself raise your profits? Even if you're regulating it too, how are you somehow offsetting your taxes in greater part to raise your bottom line?


----------



## SD83 (Aug 3, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Actually, I don't think you got the memo. You're not supposed to use the term "Mentally Retarded" anymore. Speak with your local liberal activists for further clarification on this matter.



Political correctness my ass. Half of the "liberal activists" are at least as nuts as their conservative counterparts. Partly in a naive "let's all live together in peace and happiness" way, but still nuts.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 3, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Statistical inference is not the same as speculation. Inference is based on mathematical data, speculation is far more qualitative.
> 
> As far as getting the rest of the world on board, why not lead by example?



Hmmmmmmmmm, I thought that's what we had been trying.
Looks like China is getting on board?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 3, 2014)

Leading in what way exactly?  We are the second largest in overall pollution and second largest polluters per capita. We aren't even kind of leading by example, unless that example is to pollute more. All that paperwork we do in Congress is mostly for show. We've improved quite a bit since the industrial revolution, but we still have a long way to go. If it weren't for what little we do actually do it'd be a whole lot worse though.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 3, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Many of us have made lifestyle changes and at least TRY to be environmentally conscious. Your idea of living in teepees is not realistic as one would still have to own land on which to do that.



No, that's just an excuse you've made up in your psyche to validate your hypocrisy. You could sell all your stuff and live on National Forest land for the rest of your life. You just need to move your campsite around once in awhile.



Grindspine said:


> Many of us have cut back on driving, cut back on electricity costs, reuse and recycle when possible. The attitude that the earth is a playground/trash pit for us is obsolete. Lance, your ideas are obsolete and, as many have stated, not backed by any substantial data.



Good for you. I don't believe in being wasteful or polluting unnecessarily either. However, now you're just throwing out pathetic inferences that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject which is the Earth has slowly been warming for 11,700 years during this current interglacial period. 




Grindspine said:


> Lance, in addition to my above mentioned qualifications, I worked in mental health and do have a degree in psychology. Many of your responses could be ascribed to coming from a retarded person (that is to say, a person with an intelligence quotient two standard deviations below the norm).
> 
> I do not know if you are really that mentally deficient or if you're suffering from some psychosis where the realities of the world that we see do not match the "realities" that you are imagining.



Worked? That sounds like past tense. Perhaps you got let go because of your insensitive remarks to people? So now because you've got a "degree in psychology" you're somehow able do an online mental health evaluations of people who disagree with you and the fabricated junk science of anthropogenic based climate change? Its really hard to take a mental health professional such as yourself seriously when you start labeling people "mentally retarded" and "psychotic"... It just makes you look somewhat illogical... 




Grindspine said:


> No one is denying that carbon dioxide has ever been released from the earth into the atmosphere. During the Carboniferous period, much of the carbon contained in the atmosphere was absorbed into flora and fauna. Those life forms died, became buried by natural sedimentation, and the carbon they contained became coal.
> 
> The coal (and other hydrocarbon fuels) being harvested and burned releases said carbon back into the atmosphere. Match that up to your claims about heating and cooling cycles in the atmosphere.
> 
> Unless you do have a mental disability, you should see some link there between temperatures during the Carboniferous period, the burial of coal, the extraction and burning of coal, and rising carbon levels/temperatures now.



Match it up with my claims? lol... The observations of the warming and cooling cycles I spoke of you can read about in any encyclopedia. So instead since you're obviously much smarter than me because I'm just a mentally retarded psychotic maybe you can explain what specific phenomenon/process caused those warming and cooling periods? 

I mean there are scientist that have advanced degrees and have spent their entire lives studying these historical occurrences yet they only seem able to acknowledge these changes occurred and have no knowledge of what actually caused them but you seem very smart so maybe you can tell us what you think caused the drastic periods of heating and cooling?


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 3, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> No, that's just an excuse you've made up in your psyche to validate your hypocrisy. You could sell all your stuff and live on National Forest land for the rest of your life. You just need to move your campsite around once in awhile.


 
That is simply not true. Besides the fact that I would have to work to afford the gear necessary to survive, hunting, fishing, or foraging in nature preserves is illegal. In places where hunting is legal, it would still be necessary to renew licensure.



> Good for you. I don't believe in being wasteful or polluting unnecessarily either. However, now you're just throwing out pathetic inferences that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject which is the Earth has slowly been warming for 11,700 years during this current interglacial period.


 
Pointless inference? I left you the basics to connect carbon in the atmosphere during different periods to related temperatures in those periods. You apparently cannot connect a -> b.



> Worked? That sounds like past tense. Perhaps you got let go because of your insensitive remarks to people? So now because you've got a "degree in psychology" you're somehow able do an online mental health evaluations of people who disagree with you and the fabricated junk science of anthropogenic based climate change? Its really hard to take a mental health professional such as yourself seriously when you start labeling people "mentally retarded" and "psychotic"... It just makes you look somewhat illogical...


 
Nope, quit to finish my other degrees. Working full-time nights while trying to finish college isn't easy. How much education have you earned? And no, I am not evaluating you, I am offering correct usage of the phrase "mentally retarded" after you mentioned political correctness of the term. I have the qualifications to use it correctly. Maybe you should actually try to learn what a word like "psychotic" means.



> Match it up with my claims? lol... The observations of the warming and cooling cycles I spoke of you can read about in any encyclopedia. So instead since you're obviously much smarter than me because I'm just a mentally retarded psychotic maybe you can explain what specific phenomenon/process caused those warming and cooling periods?
> 
> I mean there are scientist that have advanced degrees and have spent their entire lives studying these historical occurrences yet they only seem able to acknowledge these changes occurred and have no knowledge of what actually caused them but you seem very smart so maybe you can tell us what you think caused the drastic periods of heating and cooling?


 
And back to the junk about cooling and warming cycles, asking for explanation while IGNORING THE MENTION OF THE CARBONIFEROUS PERIOD and FORMATION OF FOSSIL FUELS being a sink for much of the ATMOSPHERIC CARBON from that period.

Lance, I am done with your insulting tone and purposeful ignorance. There is no further point discussing the topic with you as you ignore evidence that has been presented, such as in the above paragraph.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 3, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> as you ignore evidence that has been presented



That is because every single piece of evidence comes from "shuddy junk science" which is about as reliable as astronomy. Or young earth creationism. I guess.  And if you decide to disregard any conclusions a bunch of unqualified junk scientists got from the historical data (on which we all seem to agree), ie if you chose to disregard 90% or current "science" in that area which points to a high LIKELINESS (we can't be 100% sure, just as we can't prove or disprove the existence of God)... well, you still could only end up with a equally high likeliness for the opposite... same here, I guess I quiet.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 3, 2014)

We all know climate change is a hoax because the Earth is obviously only 600 years round.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 3, 2014)

Lets shift gears for a minute then. We'll step back for a minute and view this whole issue in reverse as if we were looking backwards into a telescope or microscope so to speak. So lets take a look at the leading indicators that we use to measure the capitalist economy of the USA and the world. 

Real GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
M2 (Money Supply)
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Producer Price Index (PPI)
Consumer Confidence Survey
Current Employment Statistics (CES)
Unemployment Rate
Retail Trade Sales and Food Services Sales
Housing Starts 
Manufacturing and Trade Inventories and Sales
S&P 500 Stock Index (the S&P 500)
Inventory Levels
Level of New Business Startups
Income and Wages
Interest Rates
Corporate Profits

There are other factors but these will suffice. So as we can see our entire economic system (and the rest of the world for that matter) is based on growth and profit. Quite simply, in order to sustain our entire system we need to be in a state of perpetual growth. This means constantly extracting natural resources and consuming them to build more and more stuff in a never ending cycle. This growth has created the exponential effects of increased human population among other things.

At some point its obvious with this system we will reach an equilibrium. We can only build so many overpasses and there's only so much nickel and lithium we can mine to make the batteries for our liberal guilt free hybrid cars. The fundamental first law of science is the conservation of mass/matter. Certainly we aren't adding any new elements to the Earth we are simply moving them around and rearranging them to fit our supposed needs.

Again, I will repeat we are 11,700 years into the Holocene Interglacial. In simple terms for 11,700 years the overall temperature of the Earth has been warming up. So more or less 140 years ago starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we began wide scale extraction of the hydrocarbon fuels of coal, oil and natural gas. Peat too I guess lol... So that's around 1% of the Holocene Interglacial and our supposed scientists can't even figure out what caused the warming for the first 99% let alone our last century.

So lets come to a logical conclusion then. So now, as a country/world if we all acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is in fact a global emergency then we must act immediately and cease all extraction and consumption of all hydrocarbon based fuels and any other human processes that liberate CO2. That would be the only thing that could reverse this horrifying planet killing trend. 

Proponents of anthropogenic climate change insist there is a problem and the solution that they offer is a "cap and trade" which basically amounts to nothing more than a reduction however because of the constant exponential growth that is required to sustain a capitalist world economy there never will be a reduction, in fact there will only be an increase. That's how growth works... duh... it just keeps growing.

Again, this is akin to a shell game and it relates directly to the conservation of mass/matter. For example, manufacturing solar panels and wind mills requires resources and energy and is less efficient than just burning coal or oil to create the same amount of electricity so it will always fail in a free market economy. 

So yeah, our current economic system asks the question, "do you want more stuff or do you want a better healthier life?" I think we all know the answer to this question as we sit in our climate controlled rooms plunking away on our 8 strings. Again you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 3, 2014)

I never thought that would happen, but by and large I agree with that  Just with different conclusions. 
First of all, I think this "equilibrium" should be reached as quickly as possible. Most western countries are already at a point where I just can't see anything of which we would "need" more. We have cars, TV, computers, 8 string guitars, dishwashers, anything. And contrary to what the commercials try to tell us, no one needs a new car every three years. And you're right, taking production into account, a "liberal guilt free hybrid car" could actually be worse for the ecosystem than your 10 year old ride. 
The economy "needs" growth because it is not based on production but on debt. That's why inflation is considered a good thing. And that's one main flaw in the system. At least, that's my personal opinion. 

Do I want more stuff or a better healthier life? Certainly the later. Quality over quantity  I don't need a screen in every room, let alone 42'' or larger. A car (or a bigger one, if I had a small one) doesn't make me a better person. Some people need it. For some, it's as pointless as using an 8 string for a Ramones cover. I want to be healthy and happy and no bigger paycheck, bigger house, bigger car etc. will buy me that. At least not automatically, and a lack thereof does not automatically lead to depression and bad health.

It's weird to read about "climate controlled rooms" because... such things hardly exist in Germany. Double or triple glazed windows, insulated walls, works great.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 3, 2014)

What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?


----------



## Joose (Aug 3, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?



Ah, fvck.

Now I have go back and read through this thread.


----------



## crg123 (Aug 3, 2014)

Well Lake Oswego, OR (Where Eric was from) is only 26 minutes i current traffic to Vancourver, WA....

Just saying...


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 3, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?


 
Snap...

Now I feel like I wasted time replying to that moronic troll. There is a very good chance that it is, in fact, that guy.

Hopefully a moderator can view the IP addresses and ban if appropriate.


----------



## asher (Aug 4, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Snap...
> 
> Now I feel like I wasted time replying to that moronic troll. There is a very good chance that it is, in fact, that guy.
> 
> Hopefully a moderator can view the IP addresses and ban if appropriate.



Even if it's not, the likelihood of our wasting our time has been high...

If it is, he's gotten a lot better at hiding the fundie.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 5, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?



lol... losers i went and looked at that profile and hes old enough to be my Dad. The thing is I've seen that big oaf at a bunch of metal shows in Portland and hes always head to toe in black leather with long trench coat and is always raging in the pit with his buddy this satanic black guy that wears a patch vest and tons of spikes. I saw them last at Behexen and before at Diocletian and for sure was at Watain a year ago.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 5, 2014)

Related.. See this thread:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...tagon-part-global-conspiracy.html#post4122994

containing this link:

Pentagon Tell Republicans Climate Change Is Hurting the Military | New Republic

If too lazy to click, it reads that the Pentagon is now telling congress (and has been for years) that climate change is affecting the military's operations.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 5, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are the odds Lance is Eric Christian? Any way to look in to that?




I sure do miss my BFF .


----------



## asher (Aug 5, 2014)




----------



## ElRay (Aug 5, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> This is why I no longer waste any of my time trying to argue against such people, because they simply won't listen no matter how much proof you provide. ...



Unfortunately, you still have to. You'll never convince the arrogance from ignorance crowd they're wrong, but if you don't argue, they'll convince the fence sitters that they're correct. They you've got the naively ignorant following the willfully and arrogantly ignorant.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 5, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> ... What's simply amazing is how easily the majority of Americans in particular have been educated and conditioned to believe in this giant fabricated lie of anthropogenic CO2. ...



Like 97% of climate Scientists?
Like NASA?
Like NOAA
Like the Pentagon?
Like the Republican appointed head of the EPA?
Like the Property & Casualty Insurance and Reinsurance Association?
Like the U.S. Conference of Bishops?
Like EVERY major Scientific Organization in the U.S.?
Like M&M Mars?
Like Coke?
Like Google?
Like Apple?
Like Walmart?
Like Young Republicans?

Lance, you've descended into the realm of the ....ing intellectually lazy moron. You continue to spew your cherry-picked, ignorant nonsense. The overwhelming body of evidence support anthropogenic global warming. You've done NOTHING to refute the actual science, which you claim to be ignorant of. At least you've got the company of the Spice Girls and Frank Burns from M.A.S.H..

Go read that site you've been pointed at many, many, many times. There's a "common denier claims refuted" page. Start there. When you can understand that, and if you still believe your nonsense, then write a ....ing journal paper exposing the errors, get it published, and then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll no longer be the intellectually lazy, willful ignorant ass you are now.

Since you're too lazy to read, how about watching something:


Ray


----------



## ElRay (Aug 5, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> _*{{{... more ignorant tripe from Lance ...}}}*_


----------



## asher (Aug 5, 2014)

Wow, my breakfast would become 150% more adorable. I should try that sometime!


----------



## ElRay (Aug 5, 2014)

SD83 said:


> That is because every single piece of evidence comes from "shuddy junk science" which is about as reliable as astronomy. ...



You've got a few folks that will disagree with you:
97% of climate Scientists
NASA
NOAA
The Pentagon
The Republican appointed by G.W.. Bush that headed the EPA
The Property & Casualty Insurance and Reinsurance Association
The U.S. Conference of Bishops
EVERY major Scientific Organization in the U.S.
M&M Mars
Coke
Google
Apple
Walmart
The Association of Young Republicans
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.

I'm sorry, it's the climate deniers that are being unscientific and are no different than Creationists, anti-Vaxers, Flat Earthers, etc. At least you've got The Spice Girls and Frank Burns from M.A.S.H. on your side.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 6, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You've got a few folks that will disagree with you:
> 
> 97% of climate Scientists
> NASA
> ...



Irony  Damn, and I totally meant astrology  Still, I'm confused how anyone who read the thread could believe I'm on the deniers side  Rereading that post, I thought that would have been obvious with that one alone.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 6, 2014)

^

I think the sarcasm just didn't translate on the printed page.

Or maybe ElRay was simply on a roll and didn't care about collateral damage.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 6, 2014)

I saw Ray's reply to Lance a page ago, and then I figured that he was editing responses and just messed up. The "on a roll with collateral damage" idea made me laugh though, almost to the point of spraying my monitor with Dr. Pepper. +1 to your rep, good sir!

----

I do like the implied assertion (from what was quoted) that everyone is a mindless sheep except the fossil fuel industry, those the fossil fuel industry has paid to cast doubt (like Big Tobacco and the Tobacco Institute) or to cast votes (elected officials), and those taken in by the fossil fuel industry's story. 

Way to think independently... while relying on just one source for your thoughts and ideas! So much smarter to reject converging independent sources! Way to have them think for yourself!

----

Not funny to me, and I hope he has a sense of shame and embarrassment about it, but...
*
I have Lance on ignore, but am I to understand that Lance is calling the good people in our military stupid mindless sheep? Why do you need to insult those who put themselves in harm's way for this country, including ungrateful you, Lance?*

I am hoping you're going to back that insult with some solid research and reasons why you're right and everyone else is wrong, including that group. Otherwise, *you're portraying yourself as not just an idiot, but an unpatriotic idiot. *

C'mon. They put their lives on the line. Can you really not even do a little reading on the material you requested, and which has been provided to you, to balance out your sense of entitlement? Give a little back?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 6, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Irony  Damn, and I totally meant astrology  Still, I'm confused how anyone who read the thread could believe I'm on the deniers side  Rereading that post, I thought that would have been obvious with that one alone.



Sorry. I did miss the sarcasm. Sometimes the best parody is indistinguishable from the truth -- Kind of a reverse-POE post.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Aug 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Or maybe ElRay was simply on a roll and didn't care about collateral damage.


 

Intellectual Collateral Damage -- I think I saw them at the 8x10 in Baltimore,


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 7, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Lets shift gears for a minute then. We'll step back for a minute and view this whole issue in reverse as if we were looking backwards into a telescope or microscope so to speak. So lets take a look at the leading indicators that we use to measure the capitalist economy of the USA and the world.
> 
> Real GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
> M2 (Money Supply)
> ...



Besides SD83 I notice how everyone else is quite silent on the point I made above regarding how our world economical system of perpetual growth actually conflicts with any type of real reduction in CO2 emissions. Why is that?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 7, 2014)

I thought you've been arguing that humans hardly contribute to CO2 emissions (global warming)? Either we do or we don't. If we do, reducing it, even if it isn't physically lowering the amount within the atmosphere, is still the preferable option. What you are describing basically is a ship with a pen sized hole in it and your solution is to make the hole bigger rather than attempt to reduce the leak. If we don't contribute, as you seem to believe, then that would be irrelevant, no? Sounds like in your attempt to be right you've kind of admitted to your original hypothesis being wrong.

The cap and trade shit is BS. It is fundamentally flawed at its core. Companies being able to 'trade' pollution limits is a ridiculous concept to begin with and barely solves anything. Hybrids are also not that great for the environment either when it comes to their creation and their disposal. It is indeed a solution that basically creates a different set of problems. Neither of these things imply that climate change isn't a problem; it just means politicians are stupid and easily manipulated (hardly newsworthy). Anyone here being, or not being, a hypocrite is also completely irrelevant to climate change happening, it being a problem and the amplification of it being anthropogenic in nature.


----------



## Danukenator (Aug 7, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Besides SD83 I notice how everyone else is quite silent on the point I made above regarding how our world economical system of perpetual growth actually conflicts with any type of real reduction in CO2 emissions. Why is that?



I'm back! So...The recap of about 5 pages is: Trench gave up on fake science after I cited some stuff and went back name calling and Lance gave up on making actual points. What a twist!

I'll address the point that's stumped (*sarcasm*) everyone.

I grant that capitalism is at conflict with efforts to stop global warming. I think there are alternatives to capitalism that are more equitable but I'm just a dirty liberal. That's basically the answer. If you don't even except it's real then why both talk to you about the economics of dealing with it?


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 8, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> I grant that capitalism is at conflict with efforts to stop global warming. I think there are alternatives to capitalism that are more equitable but I'm just a dirty liberal. That's basically the answer. If you don't even except it's real then why both talk to you about the economics of dealing with it?



That would seem to be an incomplete answer though. You make the assertion that there are alternatives to capitalism that are "more equitable" yet that's really vague and lacks specific solutions that will reduce anthropogenic climate change. Please elaborate.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 8, 2014)

That little snippet of Lance quoted in Danukenator's post just oozes with insincerity. 

Is the point that you'll never get agreement (especially with Republican members of Congress like Inhofe getting the majority of their funds from energy companies - yup, look it up... if you're finally smart and capable enough!), or that it doesn't exist? At least be consistent on your arguments, if you can.

And I'm not saying that's possible. 

----

I've heard that kind of argument before. "You'll nevwr stop all murder, so you shouldn't make the attempt at all!" "You cant stop all child abuse, so you shouldn't waste the effort!? "You can't stop all rape, so why bother?" 

The thing is, yes, you'll always have murderers, rapists, child abusers and those who make money of of the cuases of global warming. However, eventually society works to constrain all those assholes who only think of what profits them, and they wind up more and more isolated to where they can't harm others very easily. 

Why bother? Really? 

At what point does willful ignorance count as trolling the PC&E forum?


----------



## Danukenator (Aug 8, 2014)

Yes! We can never stop rapists, murders and the evil doers of the world. Let them be free!

^THAT'S insincerity. And a poor interpretation of what I said. Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you're saying but taking what I said, reducing it to willful ignorance and then drawing parallels to positions about rapists and murders (which are completely unlike what I said) doesn't seem like the fairest interpretation of what I said.


In the event I simply wasn't clear, I will clarify. 

First, I will admit it was a snarky post. Perhaps it didn't translate well. I saw Lance's post as somewhat lame to shift the focus of the discussion away from the scientific evidence to the economics of global warming. When the dodge went unaddressed, Lance acted like it had stumped people. 

Secondly, I maintain that capitalism IS at conflict with efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. When I say "capitalism" I am referring to your textbook definition of a free market. Filters required by the EPA interfere with a free market. I assume Lance's point was that global markets require constant growth which will in turn produce more emissions. I agree. I'm sorry if you think that's trolling. There are several great papers which have discussed alternatives to current economic systems that are more equitable.

Frankly, I'm not an economist. I've read quite a bit about the global distribution of pollution and the production of goods that feed the "system." If Lance is asking for an alternative to the current system then I'd posit no one has a complete solution. To change the entire structure of the world economy is almost unthinkable in terms of simply legislating change. Market forces would chip away legislation by punishing countries that adopted some sort of socialized-capitalist. If nothing else, capitalism is an incredibly durable system. As such, I simply concede Lance has identified a valid problem.  I can suggest changes that should be made and what I think should be done. BUT, I don't like simply speculating about complex solutions.

If I state "all factories should have advanced filtration systems," I'd be ignoring the incredible issue associated with getting people to do it. It'd be like pulling teeth to just the US to adopt such a measure (I'm speaking conceptually here not literally. I'm sure factories have some level of filtration required.  At least I hope. ). How would we adopt that on a global level? Trade agreements or perhaps reduced trade taxes on "clean" goods? In the end, based on the OP, this feels like it should be it's own thread. We're forgetting that the thread was started because people were denying climate change. If we're not on the same page about THAT then how can we start curbing emissions that, if we believe the deniers, aren't doing anything. I'm not saying that it's unsolvable and we should talk about. I'm saying we shouldn't talk about it because it's OT. I didn't give a lengthy response because I'm interested in the science of the issue. 

If I know nothing else, in a capitalistic economy, people won't spend money to stop pollution that they think is harmless (or at least inert). As such, I'm more interested in hearing arguments about the science.

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------

On a less argumentative note: I HIGHLY recommend this documentary: Thin Ice (2013 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wiki page is criminally short but the documentary has a unique spin focusing on both the science (in a very digestible and non-hokey manner) as well as the actual scientists. Deniers (generalizing here) will often attack the scientists as self-interested monsters who have conspired to steal the world and it's riches. In reality, they are often nice, humble people who go to great lengths to pursue research they are interested in.

Unlike NOVA documentaries (which have their place) this one is really heartfelt and well done. It ties together many scientific angles without becoming esoteric or dumbing it down.

NOTE: Posted at 2:00 AM. Sorry if there are horrific errors.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 8, 2014)

I was talking about the position in the Lance quote where it looked like he was abandoning the "AGW is a hoax!" line for "We'll never get cooperation in trying to mitigate the effects of AGW!" That wasn't directed at you, but at the person who is now digging new holes in order to keep opposing... what? Hoax? Conspiracy? An actual problem that one just won't admit to because political heroes and oil companies say it doesn't exist?

I don't know, and I'm not sure that Lance does either. But the weird argument shift appears to be tacit acknowledgment that there's too much evidence sinking the denial ship, so it's time to find a new watercraft to infest....


----------



## ElRay (Aug 8, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> Besides SD83 I notice how everyone else is quite silent on the point I made above regarding how our world economical system of perpetual growth actually conflicts with any type of real reduction in CO2 emissions. Why is that?



Because you're an arrogantly ignorant intellectually lazy child. 

Can you actually learn something instead of moving the goal-posts when you've obviously been PROVEN wrong over and over and over and over and ... and over again?

Have you bothered to visit: Global Warming & Climate Change Myths yet? Can you at least un-refute the half-dozen or so myths you spew? I have no expectation that you can un-refute all 176 busted myths, but at least try to disprove the facts behind the refutation of the nonsense you use to justify your It's-not-happening-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-know-more-than-all-the-experts position.


----------



## Danukenator (Aug 8, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I was talking about the position in the Lance quote where it looked like he was abandoning the "AGW is a hoax!" line for "We'll never get cooperation in trying to mitigate the effects of AGW!" That wasn't directed at you, but at the person who is now digging new holes in order to keep opposing... what? Hoax? Conspiracy? An actual problem that one just won't admit to because political heroes and oil companies say it doesn't exist?
> 
> I don't know, and I'm not sure that Lance does either. But the weird argument shift appears to be tacit acknowledgment that there's too much evidence sinking the denial ship, so it's time to find a new watercraft to infest....



I figured I may have been reading what you said incorrect. 

And, I completely agree.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 8, 2014)

If your belief system includes an inherent validation of the anthropogenic climate change theory then certainly then you must acknowledge that the only solution is an immediate cessation of CO2 emissions. Obviously this can only be accomplished the conclusion of all extraction & consumption of all hydrocarbon based fuels. This would require going back to a civilization based on the pre industrial revolution model. Logically, this solution would also include an overall world population reduction as well to further mitigate the CO2 produced by livestock etc.

However, according to the politically correct narrative the solution must simply be a reduction of CO2 emissions on a personal level like replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent or led bulbs and driving hybrid cars. Seeing as our entire world population is increasing by 200,000 people every single day these efforts are not only quite meaningless but they are merely nothing more than symbolic feel good efforts designed to validate the egos and stifle the climate guilt of urban centric upper middle class liberals. Either you believe in this and act accordingly or you're nothing more than ersatz armchair climatologists paying lip service to each other. Driving a Prius and paying extra on your electricity bill for imaginary subsidized "wind power" isn't going to reduce CO2 emissions one iota...

Frequently Asked Questions - World Population Balance - sustainable world US population

Population Media Center &#8211; Population


----------



## ElRay (Aug 8, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I was talking about the position in the Lance quote where it looked like he was abandoning the "AGW is a hoax!" line for "We'll never get cooperation in trying to mitigate the effects of AGW!" ...



Here's a few pictures of Lance and his friends:



















Grindspine said:


> ... I have noticed Lance's responses become more strawman arguments and attacks rather than real debate. ... Lance, in addition to my above mentioned qualifications, I worked in mental health and do have a degree in psychology. Many of your responses could be ascribed to coming from a retarded person (that is to say, a person with an intelligence quotient two standard deviations below the norm). ... I do not know if you are really that mentally deficient or if you're suffering from some psychosis where the realities of the world that we see do not match the "realities" that you are imagining. ...



I think Grindspine is correct. Between this, the moving of goalposts and switching to ad hominem attacks, I'm done with Lance. I likely won't be perfect, because I have a hard time ignoring stupidity when I see a perfect chance for humor, but Lance is joining the ranks of Engage and Steath -- the only two other people in my ignore list. ITW Matija was on the list until he let us know that he has a tendency to get high and do stupid things. Drug induced, temporary, stupidity is one thing, arrogant, willful ignorance is another.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 8, 2014)

Lance Thrustgood said:


> If your belief system includes an inherent validation of the anthropogenic climate change theory then certainly then you must acknowledge that the only solution is an immediate cessation of CO2 emissions ...



Yeah, more strawman arguments. By this illogic, we might as well close-down all police & fire stations because we'll never prevent every crime or fire.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 8, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Yeah, more strawman arguments. By this illogic, we might as well close-down all police & fire stations because we'll never prevent every crime or fire.



"Before we had a police station, no one got imprissoned..." No police station = no crime!  Totally makes no sense... but to some it might.

What people tend to forget is that the world is not black and white. It's not just good and evil. Sure, the overall CO2 emission might still rise if 300 mio Americans reduce their emissions by 20% and 1700 mio Chinese increase their number by 20% and their emissions by 40%... does that make it pointless for the Americans to reduce their emissions? No. If you drink 10 beers instead of 12, you'll still be drunk (or atleast, I would be), but not THAT drunk. 
Sure, the "best" solution would be to reduce world population. If we stick to the current system, our ancestors (and by ancestors, I TOTALLY mean descendants ) will have to solve an even bigger problem. More, more, more will not work forever. Better, better, better, may. Perhaps. I mean we already are at a point where we have 120hp-cars that do about 45 miles per gallon/5l per 100km. Old fashioned, petrol driven cars, no hybrid, no electric engine. Same with other technologies. Now if those would not break down after a couple of years... but that's a whole different story.


----------



## asher (Aug 8, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Sure, the "best" solution would be to reduce world population.



It's really unnecessary right now. We have plenty of money and quite a range of technologies we can deploy in concert to shift to far more sustainable modes of energy production. And then you think of how many farmers are subsidized to only grow so much, or only grow corn...

But much of that money is heavily vested in not changing because it immediately threatens its self-perpetuation. That's the _real_ problem.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 8, 2014)

asher said:


> It's really unnecessary right now. We have plenty of money and quite a range of technologies we can deploy in concert to shift to far more sustainable modes of energy production. And then you think of how many farmers are subsidized to only grow so much, or only grow corn...
> 
> But much of that money is heavily vested in not changing because it immediately threatens its self-perpetuation. That's the _real_ problem.




"Plenty of Money"... 

After more than a decade of perpetual wars... Yeah...

U.S. National Debt Clock

"More sustainable modes of energy production"

The so called sustainable energy production of wind, solar, hydro & geothermal is much less efficient than natural gas, coal & oil. The only way that it can compete is with artificial government subsidies with money we don't have.


----------



## asher (Aug 8, 2014)

Read the second paragraph again, and that should tell you that the money certainly isn't in the US Government (and that's ignoring how much of a non-problem the debt is).


----------



## Explorer (Aug 8, 2014)

Before:



SD83 said:


> If we stick to the current system, our *ancestors* will have to solve an even bigger problem.



After:



SD83 said:


> If we stick to the current system, our *descendents* will have to solve an even bigger problem.



Agreed.

In a point I see as related, it was interesting how the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign started bringing a lot of American Christians over the side of environmentalism. "If you get a gift from someone you love, do you take care of it, or do you trash it? If the Earth is a gift from God, to do with as we will, and if we really love God... do we trash the Earth, or help keep it nice?" 

The "Keep things nice for those will come after you, to the seventh generation" argument helps ground a lot of people. It's a hard one to counter on the part of those who have a profit motive in not preserving the Earth. It's only by buying votes in Congress that they can destroy the water table in so many areas in pursuit of short term profits.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 9, 2014)

Ah damn, that shouldn't have happened, second language or not  thanks.


----------

