Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[Unrepresented]

This thread is great. It's kind of like watching Bill Maher's show, but more entertaining.

And even including BawanaRik's eventual inclusion, notably less misogynistic.:|

 

[gbrooding]

This has nothing at all to do with the science that clearly says anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening.

A site that comes at this topic from a different angle.... the earth's climate is very closely related to solar activity. Interesting read... http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1

 

[Bloodhammer]

And even including BawanaRik's eventual inclusion, notably less misogynistic.:|

Didn't Bill date a stripper named Miss Ogyny?

 

[will33]

If that ever becomes an issue then you can write your legislators. Start by going back several decades and telling them you don't want streetcars ripped out, that you want a strong public transportation system, that you don't want to have to buy a car and the gas from the industries that made sure the first two didn't happen.

This has nothing at all to do with the science that clearly says anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening.

I'm not denying it is. To what extent it is, and especially the proposed solutions to it, are however highly questionable. Even scientists saying "change is bad", is highly questionable.

The Earth will be just fine. The people living on it is another matter entirely. To screw future generations for our own temporary comfort is evil. For "powers that be" to limit the aspirations and freedoms of us here and now, with the false goal of "saving the planet" while only enriching themselves it equally evil.

Like I said....you really want to live in harmony with the earth and do no damage to her, go live like grizzly adams. Otherwise, it's all just varying degrees of damage and/or shifting damage around so it fits the polotick du jour...

 

[96tbird]

Burning plastic makes nice smoke.

 

[Schlyder]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/

 

[Unrepresented]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/

Hooray for outliers being celebrated as evidence of a trend!

 

[will33]

If that ever becomes an issue then you can write your legislators. Start by going back several decades and telling them you don't want streetcars ripped out, that you want a strong public transportation system, that you don't want to have to buy a car and the gas from the industries that made sure the first two didn't happen.

This has nothing at all to do with the science that clearly says anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening.

I should also mention that "ripping out streetcars", or the need for a "strong public transportation system" wouldn't exist if we didn't have hundreds of millions of people squeezed together, living in little "economically correct boxes", piled up on top each other in very geographically small areas.....Cities that are nothing natural at all, rather people crammed together as tightly as possible in an artificial "environment" consisting of pavement, concrete, and plastic.

Less pavement and concrete and "apartments" and more spread out living on the land I say.

 

[Bloodhammer]

I'm not denying it is. To what extent it is, and especially the proposed solutions to it, are however highly questionable. Even scientists saying "change is bad", is highly questionable.

The Earth will be just fine. The people living on it is another matter entirely. To screw future generations for our own temporary comfort is evil. For "powers that be" to limit the aspirations and freedoms of us here and now, with the false goal of "saving the planet" while only enriching themselves it equally evil.

Like I said....you really want to live in harmony with the earth and do no damage to her, go live like grizzly adams. Otherwise, it's all just varying degrees of damage and/or shifting damage around so it fits the polotick du jour...

What "freedoms" would we be selling away by switching to renewable energy sources? The "freedom" to drive a gasoline-powered car in a world that has moved on from gasoline? That just seems like being defiant rather than enjoying freedom.

I should also mention that "ripping out streetcars", or the need for a "strong public transportation system" wouldn't exist if we didn't have hundreds of millions of people squeezed together, living in little "economically correct boxes", piled up on top each other in very geographically small areas.....Cities that are nothing natural at all, rather people crammed together as tightly as possible in an artificial "environment" consisting of pavement, concrete, and plastic.

Less pavement and concrete and "apartments" and more spread out living on the land I say.

Seems to me you have to commute if you live spread out, whereas you can walk to work if you live in a downtown area.

 

[will33]

What "freedoms" would we be selling away by switching to renewable energy sources? The "freedom" to drive a gasoline-powered car in a world that has moved on from gasoline? That just seems like being defiant rather than enjoying freedom.



Seems to me you have to commute if you live spread out, whereas you can walk to work if you live in a downtown area.

Where's the net gain?

Is there an overall net gain in razing hundreds of acres of land to make a "solar farm" full of solar panels that are made out of petroleum derived products?

Is there a net gain from driving electric cars that still need electricity being generated? What goes into making their batteries, how toxic are they, and how do you dispose of them? Ar these cars not made out of alot of plastic (another petroleum derived product)? How is the electricity needed to charge them being generated? Going to charge them with windmills? How much mining and refining of neodymium does it take to make a windmill, or an electric car, with a limited lifespan? Going to do it with nuclear? Going to put the waste back in the ground for 500 million years or shoot it into outer space? How are you going to get it there?

What is the net gain from destroying nature to reform it into pavement and concrete? Or would it make more sense for people to live in smaller communities that are more friendly towards taking resources?



People seem to think they've got bright ideas, but it's largely narrow thinking. IMO, most of them seem to think the entire world lives in multi-story apartments in big cities and does not consider what it takes to feed, house, fuel such a construct.

Basically, when discussing things like this, I find myself talking to people who think milk comes from a store instead of a cow.

 

[Bloodhammer]

You're right. There's no reason for people to find solutions to the issues you've named because it's just not worth it. :|

 

[Schlyder]

Hooray for outliers being celebrated as evidence of a trend!

That isn't what the article is about. Nice straw man though.

Here is the an excerpt...

"..Green guru and geophysicist James Lovelock, considered one of the pioneering scientists of the 20th century, has officially turned his back on man-made global warming claims and the green movement’s focus on renewable energy. Lovelock conceived the Gaia theory back in the 1970s, describing the Earth’s biosphere as “an active, adaptive control system able to maintain the earth in homeostasis.”

In an April 3, 2014 BBC TV interview, Lovelock has come out swinging at his fellow environmentalists, accusing the new UN IPCC global warming report of plagiarizing his now retracted climate claims from his 2006 book ‘The Revenge of Gaia.’

“The last IPCC report is very similar to the (now retracted) statements I made in my book about 8 years ago, called The Revenge of Gaia. It’s almost as if they’ve copied it,” Lovelock told BBC Newsnight television program on April 3.

BBC interviewer Jeremy Paxman noted to Lovelock during the April 3 program: ”Sure. But you then, after publishing these apocalyptic predictions, you then retracted them.”

The newly skeptical Lovelock responded: ”Well, that’s my privilege. You see, I’m an independent scientist. I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it. And you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead.”

Lovelock dismissed the entire basis for global warming concerns in his BBC television interview. “Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses,” Lovelock explained...."

 

[NWB]

Which leads to scientists being perceived as evil wizards by a dumbed down public.

Sshhh!

Some of us are evil wizards.

 

[Unrepresented]

That isn't what the article is about. Nice straw man though.

Here is the an excerpt...

"..Green guru and geophysicist James Lovelock, considered one of the pioneering scientists of the 20th century, has officially turned his back on man-made global warming claims and the green movement’s focus on renewable energy. Lovelock conceived the Gaia theory back in the 1970s, describing the Earth’s biosphere as “an active, adaptive control system able to maintain the earth in homeostasis.”

In an April 3, 2014 BBC TV interview, Lovelock has come out swinging at his fellow environmentalists, accusing the new UN IPCC global warming report of plagiarizing his now retracted climate claims from his 2006 book ‘The Revenge of Gaia.’

“The last IPCC report is very similar to the (now retracted) statements I made in my book about 8 years ago, called The Revenge of Gaia. It’s almost as if they’ve copied it,” Lovelock told BBC Newsnight television program on April 3.

BBC interviewer Jeremy Paxman noted to Lovelock during the April 3 program: ”Sure. But you then, after publishing these apocalyptic predictions, you then retracted them.”

The newly skeptical Lovelock responded: ”Well, that’s my privilege. You see, I’m an independent scientist. I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it. And you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead.”

Lovelock dismissed the entire basis for global warming concerns in his BBC television interview. “Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses,” Lovelock explained...."

Which part is the part that doesn't support my statement about an isolated individual being used as a false figurehead of some greater trend that doesn't actually exist? I still see only further support of my statement the more you post.

 

[NWB]

Where's the net gain?

Is there an overall net gain in razing hundreds of acres of land to make a "solar farm" full of solar panels that are made out of petroleum derived products?

Is there a net gain from driving electric cars that still need electricity being generated? What goes into making their batteries, how toxic are they, and how do you dispose of them? Ar these cars not made out of alot of plastic (another petroleum derived product)? How is the electricity needed to charge them being generated? Going to charge them with windmills? How much mining and refining of neodymium does it take to make a windmill, or an electric car, with a limited lifespan? Going to do it with nuclear? Going to put the waste back in the ground for 500 million years or shoot it into outer space? How are you going to get it there?

What is the net gain from destroying nature to reform it into pavement and concrete? Or would it make more sense for people to live in smaller communities that are more friendly towards taking resources?



People seem to think they've got bright ideas, but it's largely narrow thinking. IMO, most of them seem to think the entire world lives in multi-story apartments in big cities and does not consider what it takes to feed, house, fuel such a construct.

Basically, when discussing things like this, I find myself talking to people who think milk comes from a store instead of a cow.

You raise some important and very valid points about energy inputs Will. It's worthwhile to consider the full net energy of any technology.

 

[Schlyder]

More like a cult leader leaving the cult, and then the cult members getting butt hurt and denounce the heretic. But you see it how you will. YMMV.

Claiming that consensus is science is to throw hundreds of years of the scientific method out the window. Which is what Climate Change alarmists are doing.

Here is more Alarmist response... stifle any voices that don't agree with them.

Invalid Link Removed


There is some science. http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/...tarctic-sea-ice-extent-still-25-above-normal/

Where is this melting Antarctic???

 

[Unrepresented]

More like a cult leader leaving the cult, and then the cult members getting butt hurt and denounce the heretic. But you see it how you will. YMMV.

Claiming that consensus is science is to throw hundreds of years of the scientific method out the window. Which is what Climate Change alarmists are doing.

I see him as a falsely appointed "leader" by those wishing to suggest greater things about his apparent reversal than there actually is.

Scientists don't have leaders.

 

[mog416]

In honor of this thread, I'm going to turn up the enrichment screw on my 50 year old car's carb, and set the timing so it barely runs. Then I'll let the tire air down to about 10 psi. I have a "I love clean air" sticker I'll put on the bumper, that will make everything ok.

 

[richntiff]

Rest assured. We will extinct ourselves.. We are too self centered, arrogant, and convinced of our own infallibility. American society, in particular, has an ability to play the short sale for instant gain, while dismissing the longview. The insatiable greed of the economic ruling class, combined with the willingness to be spoonfed false truths among the mid and lower class, has castrated our ability to act in any other course of action beyond that of immediate self preservation. The evidence that humans have greatly accelerated and intensified the earth's somewhat haphazard natural cycles to a point where we will literally threaten our own existence is virtually irrefutable. Yet, we are so quick to take stock in a Koch founded falsity, rather than acknowledge our inherent resistance to admit we are capable of drastically altering our environment. And why? Because it makes a better sound byte, and the shareholders see a .1% increased rate of return, which matches the projection. And now, I'd better put down the wine bottle

 

[96tbird]

Two words. Hydrogen


















Baby!