• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Dissent on Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
#41
jimfist said:
We don't hear much about what MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has recently said about the topic. Many of the "alarmists" would just prefer this guy quietly pass along to the afterlife so they no longer have to endure his support of SCIENCE and reasoned logic anymore.

Richard Lindzen....look him up, sheeple.
Click to expand...

What a great strategy.....try to convince others that YOUR opinion is the only worthy one.....by name calling???? Good luck with that.

Dale Carnegie.....look him up!
 
#42
Munjibunga said:
Just so there's no confusion, I'm not a denier - I think the evidence is strong for a warming climate. But I have a strong feeling that the scale's been tipped and it's too late to reverse the trend, assuming we ever had that ability. Again, it could be that Mother Nature is the dominant driving force behind it and we're just helping out a little. If that's the case we're pretty much SOL. I'm glad I'm old.
Click to expand...

Same here pretty much. Except that I'm not so old.

I figure that if you transfer as much carbon from the geosphere to the atmosphere as humanity has done, that there has to be an effect. Assuming that we could do something about it at this point, I have absolutely no doubt that we would not.
 
#43
Just for the record; I've been a skeptic, but that seems to be changing. You've got to admit that there's a ton of money to be made off global warming/cc, and capitalist's like Gore are now triple-digit millionaire's so don't get upset at the skeptics that didn't buy into the story.

I'd like to know what science will find say 20 years from now, but I might not be here then.



Go Go Godzilla! :p
 
#44
Solarmist said:
Just for the record; I've been a skeptic, but that seems to be changing. You've got to admit that there's a ton of money to be made off global warming/cc, and capitalist's like Gore are now triple-digit millionaire's so don't get upset at the skeptics that didn't buy into the story.

I'd like to know what science will find say 20 years from now, but I might not be here then.



Go Go Godzilla! :p
Click to expand...

I'd say there's much more money to be made from continuing along the path we're currently on (not fully acknowledging climate change) than from being honest. Geez, it doesn't take more than a bit of common sense to see that the chances are pretty good that what we've been doing on earth is more likely than not going to have a severe impact on the atmosphere.
 
#45
CrashClint said:
Not everyone lives in a city where public transit is always readily available. People rely on cars to get to their minimum wage jobs so jacking the price a couple of dollars per gallon is not a good option.
Click to expand...


Like Evansville Indiana?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579291082088736984

And to be accurate most of the rest of the world. It's my understanding that the US with 5% of the worlds population uses close to 25% of the worlds petroleum output.

If the rest of the world can deal, why not us?
 
#46
jimfist said:
We don't hear much about what MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has recently said about the topic. Many of the "alarmists" would just prefer this guy quietly pass along to the afterlife so they no longer have to endure his support of SCIENCE and reasoned logic anymore.

Richard Lindzen....look him up, sheeple.
Click to expand...
This would be the same Richard Lindzen that said his discredited paper on the topic contained "stupid mistakes" and "was just embarrassing", right? The one who climate change deniers love to listen to for confirmation bias reasons, but pretty much every other climate change scientist thinks is a kook "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message". That guy?
 
#47
BawanaRik said:
Like Evansville Indiana?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579291082088736984

And to be accurate most of the rest of the world. It's my understanding that the US with 5% of the worlds population uses close to 25% of the worlds petroleum output.

If the rest of the world can deal, why not us?
Click to expand...

Who's saying the rest of the world "can deal"? Most of the rest of the world is struggling to survive. What put the U.S. in the position it's in economically? Dumb luck? Are the rest of the countries in the world so devoid of natural resources that they can not exploit them? Are you sure backwards ideologies don't play a role in their plight?
 
#48
Munjibunga said:
Who's saying the rest of the world "can deal"? Most of the rest of the world is struggling to survive. What put the U.S. in the position it's in economically? Dumb luck? Are the rest of the countries in the world so devoid of natural resources that they can not exploit them? Are you sure backwards ideologies don't play a role in their plight?
Click to expand...
Throughout history, different countries have been dominant - politically, economically, culturally - through different periods, due to changing fortunes and a variety of other reasons. Such history shows such dominance can be relatively long lasting or relatively short-lived. The times they are a-changin'.
 
#49
vin*tone said:
Not overpopulation - overconsumption. There's a huge difference there. The earth can support twice as many people who consume half as much.
Click to expand...

But that is simply not true. People will use up any and all resources they possibly can.

Humans do not regulate their consumption. Humans are not like animals in an ecosystem that seek balance.

The only way to limit consumption is to limit the number of humans.
 
#50
Munjibunga said:
Who's saying the rest of the world "can deal"? Most of the rest of the world is struggling to survive. What put the U.S. in the position it's in economically? Dumb luck? Are the rest of the countries in the world so devoid of natural resources that they can not exploit them? Are you sure backwards ideologies don't play a role in their plight?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do. And if you were to check them out ecologically you might notice they aren't as clean as people might think.

Chernobyl ring a bell.

I think we need to stop subsidizing stupid behavior here at home.
 
#52
bassybill said:
Huh? There are no animals in any ecosystem anywhere that "seek balance". The balance sort of gets imposed on them.

Humans aren't exempt from that, of course.
Click to expand...

I think we gained an exemption in the form of millions of years of stored sunlight energy in fossil fuels. Human population and fossil energy use trends follow pretty closely.

And since resources like fossil fuels and fresh water are unlimited, so is our population.;)
 
#54
bassybill said:
Huh? There are no animals in any ecosystem anywhere that "seek balance". The balance sort of gets imposed on them.

Humans aren't exempt from that, of course.
Click to expand...

We are, more than ever before.

There are no predators keeping human populations in check. Even diseases have been defeated, for now.

Animal (or "natural" species) never get nowhere near that point, as each population is tightly interconnected, so species keep one another in check.

Only thing that limits human populations are catastrophic failures of the ecosystem, usually deforestation followed by famine and drought.

Historically thats been the reason for destruction of otherwise successful civilizations, take ancient greek culture for example.

This time it will probably be global, caused by first the depletion of oceanic ecosystems followed by weirdness caused by humans killing off every (large land) predator there is.

 
#56
freatles said:
We are, more than ever before.

There are no predators keeping human populations in check. Even diseases have been defeated, for now.

Animal (or "natural" species) never get nowhere near that point, as each population is tightly interconnected, so species keep one another in check.

Only thing that limits human populations are catastrophic failures of the ecosystem, usually deforestation followed by famine and drought.

Historically thats been the reason for destruction of otherwise successful civilizations, take ancient greek culture for example.

This time it will probably be global, caused by first the depletion of oceanic ecosystems followed by weirdness caused by humans killing off every (other) predator there is.
Click to expand...

The major source of human predation is, of course, humans.

It's my guess we've self regulated something like 10 to the 9 humans out of the ecosphere in last few decades.
 
#58
BawanaRik said:
The major source of human predation is, of course, humans.

It's my guess we've self regulated something like 10 to the 9 humans out of the ecosphere in last few decades.
Click to expand...

I fear its nowhere enough, you cant even see the WWII in this graph.

Inventing antibiotics snapped the last hair connecting humans to the "natural balance of things"

550px-Population_curve.svg.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back