• 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.

Irreversible climate damage is imminent

#744
OK, I'm reaaallly tired right now, but I'll put this out there.

For those who do not believe that the planet is warming, you can go to Greenland or nearly any other place with extensive glaciers and make your very own observations of glacial melting. If you don't believe the photos, films, documented measurements, etc. of the glaciologists you can certainly visit these places and attempt to come up with a different conclusion.

The Saskatchewan Glacier of the Columbia Icefield in the Canadian Rockies is a perfect example. You can drive right to it and see all the markers of the receding glacier for the last 30 years or so. I highly recommend the trip.
 
#745
duff beer said:
We are. Billions have been spent, and continue to be spent. You appear to be one of the most uninformed people commenting on this...and that's saying a lot. You were also completely unaware that most of the planet's agricultural land is in no danger of threat from rising seas.



Please, please...educate yourself.
Click to expand...


I asked you for a citation on your facts. There is a huge difference between asking you to clarify a claim and being genuinely confused about geography, no? I'm certainly aware that the cornfields of Indiana are not about to be swamped by seawater. On the other hand, I'm not an expert on global food production like you appear to be, so I was asking for additional information from you. Were you referring to overall land mass? Or where the most people get their food from? As it has been pointed out numerous times already, there are significant agricultural areas in Florida that are close to sea level, surely those are not the only low-lying agricultural lands worldwide.

You can keep assuming that I am completely misinformed and ignorant because I keep asking simple questions. A truly wise man would be able to grasp the larger meaning behind them. Besides, my opinion of your insight could not possibly be lower.
 
#746
bolophonic said:
I asked you for a citation on your facts. There is a huge difference between asking you to clarify a claim and being genuinely confused about geography, no? I'm certainly aware that the cornfields of Indiana are not about to be swamped by seawater. On the other hand, I'm not an expert on global food production like you appear to be, so I was asking for additional information from you. Were you referring to overall land mass? Or where the most people get their food from? As it has been pointed out numerous times already, there are significant agricultural areas in Florida that are close to sea level, surely those are not the only low-lying agricultural lands worldwide.

You can keep assuming that I am completely misinformed and ignorant because I keep asking simple questions. A truly wise man would be able to grasp the larger meaning behind them. Besides, my opinion of your insight could not possibly be lower.
Click to expand...

It means I'll be able to go out my back door and get shrimp and flounder in south austin when the tides are right.


Oh....right....you didn't ask me. :hmm:
 
#748
To me this whole debate is summed up with the situation in North Carolina and their refusal to accept the science of sea level rise:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-100-centimeters-divided-state-north-carolina

It goes like this:
  • people want/need to know what the projections are so employ a team of experts to find out, to the best of our knowledge, what's going on and what's going to happen.
  • Experts present their findings which are politically and economically unpalatable.
  • Lawmakers reject findings, sling mud at the experts, ask for a different group of "experts" who will tell them what they want to hear.
  • Law ends up "democratising" the science, allowing everybody, without training, to have their say and assess what science they prefer to be true.
  • Sea level still rises…. or as one scientist put it - "The sea will win this debate."
 
#749
vin*tone said:
To me this whole debate is summed up with the situation in North Carolina and their refusal to accept the science of sea level rise:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-100-centimeters-divided-state-north-carolina

It goes like this:
  • people want/need to know what the projections are so employ a team of experts to find out, to the best of our knowledge, what's going on and what's going to happen.
  • Experts present their findings which are politically and economically unpalatable.
  • Lawmakers reject findings, sling mud at the experts, ask for a different group of "experts" who will tell them what they want to hear.
  • Law ends up "democratising" the science, allowing everybody, without training, to have their say and assess what science they prefer to be true.
  • Sea level still rises…. or as one scientist put it - "The sea will win this debate."
Click to expand...

I live in NC and I just had a devastating climate change in my pants which resulted in a huge release of methane gas increasing my carbon footprint.
 
#752
vin*tone said:
To me this whole debate is summed up with the situation in North Carolina and their refusal to accept the science of sea level rise:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-100-centimeters-divided-state-north-carolina

It goes like this:
  • people want/need to know what the projections are so employ a team of experts to find out, to the best of our knowledge, what's going on and what's going to happen.
  • Experts present their findings which are politically and economically unpalatable.
  • Lawmakers reject findings, sling mud at the experts, ask for a different group of "experts" who will tell them what they want to hear.
  • Law ends up "democratising" the science, allowing everybody, without training, to have their say and assess what science they prefer to be true.
  • Sea level still rises…. or as one scientist put it - "The sea will win this debate."
Click to expand...


Our governor appointed a noted climate change denialist to head our department of environment and natural resources in North Carolina. One of his divisions is currently suing to remove itself from the responsibility of enforcing cleanup efforts in the wake of the recent coal ash spill that most of you probably know about if you read the news. That is the nuts-and-bolts reality of climate change "skepticism." At ground level, it is simply heavily subsidized chemical-dumpers trying to cut corners on the public's dime. The coastal commission is more of the same. Meanwhile, some guy in Winnipeg is going on about the possible benefits of pollution and calling people stupid.
 
#753
If you really think that those that don't believe the hype hate the planet, love big oil, and spend their spare time dumping chemicals into bodies of water, then yes, you are stupid. However, I doubt that you really think that, and I doubt that you are stupid.

The reality is that all the projections that have been made are just that...projections. And the other reality is that all the projections made by the alarmists have been wrong, every single one of them. But, when the same people keep making more dire projections and the same people that believed the incorrect projections willingly believe the new ones no questions asked, then others have the right to question them. How often do they have to be wrong before you question them? They haven't even been right once.

The planet hasn't warmed up in 17 years. It might warm up, but it might not. Even if it does warm up, it just might not be as bad as they claim. Not all warming is bad, and it's highly unlikely that if some warming does happen that it will all be bad.
 
#754
duff beer said:
If you really think that those that don't believe the hype hate the planet, love big oil, and spend their spare time dumping chemicals into bodies of water, then yes, you are stupid. However, I doubt that you really think that, and I doubt that you are stupid.

The reality is that all the projections that have been made are just that...projections. And the other reality is that all the projections made by the alarmists have been wrong, every single one of them. But, when the same people keep making more dire projections and the same people that believed the incorrect projections willingly believe the new ones no questions asked, then others have the right to question them. How often do they have to be wrong before you question them? They haven't even been right once.

The planet hasn't warmed up in 17 years. It might warm up, but it might not. Even if it does warm up, it just might not be as bad as they claim. Not all warming is bad, and it's highly unlikely that if some warming does happen that it will all be bad.
Click to expand...

Every "fact" in this post is dead wrong and has been rebutted numerous time.
 
#755
duff beer said:
If you really think that those that don't believe the hype hate the planet, love big oil, and spend their spare time dumping chemicals into bodies of water, then yes, you are stupid. However, I doubt that you really think that, and I doubt that you are stupid.

The reality is that all the projections that have been made are just that...projections. And the other reality is that all the projections made by the alarmists have been wrong, every single one of them. But, when the same people keep making more dire projections and the same people that believed the incorrect projections willingly believe the new ones no questions asked, then others have the right to question them. How often do they have to be wrong before you question them? They haven't even been right once.

The planet hasn't warmed up in 17 years. It might warm up, but it might not. Even if it does warm up, it just might not be as bad as they claim. Not all warming is bad, and it's highly unlikely that if some warming does happen that it will all be bad.
Click to expand...

No more beer for you.
 
#756
duff beer said:
If you really think that those that don't believe the hype hate the planet, love big oil, and spend their spare time dumping chemicals into bodies of water, then yes, you are stupid. However, I doubt that you really think that, and I doubt that you are stupid.

The reality is that all the projections that have been made are just that...projections. And the other reality is that all the projections made by the alarmists have been wrong, every single one of them. But, when the same people keep making more dire projections and the same people that believed the incorrect projections willingly believe the new ones no questions asked, then others have the right to question them. How often do they have to be wrong before you question them? They haven't even been right once.

The planet hasn't warmed up in 17 years. It might warm up, but it might not. Even if it does warm up, it just might not be as bad as they claim. Not all warming is bad, and it's highly unlikely that if some warming does happen that it will all be bad.
Click to expand...

I said that a utility company polluted a river. Something tells me that you are not even taking a moment to understand what I am posting before commenting on it.

I cannot offer any explanation why climate change "skeptics" all seem to offer up the same talking points, but it is telling to me that the only people who benefit from the status quo are the already subsidized fossil fuel industries. For example, I just gave a real-life example of a noted and powerful climate change denialist who is using his position to shelter a billion dollar company from the smallest penalty or even RESPONSIBILITY for a massive chemical spill and your response was basically, "it might not be so bad if the world heated up... just let it happen."
 
#759
duff beer said:
If you really think that those that don't believe the hype hate the planet, love big oil, and spend their spare time dumping chemicals into bodies of water, then yes, you are stupid. However, I doubt that you really think that, and I doubt that you are stupid.

The reality is that all the projections that have been made are just that...projections. And the other reality is that all the projections made by the alarmists have been wrong, every single one of them. But, when the same people keep making more dire projections and the same people that believed the incorrect projections willingly believe the new ones no questions asked, then others have the right to question them. How often do they have to be wrong before you question them? They haven't even been right once.
....
Click to expand...

Every single projection is wrong? Really? You've checked them all? That's astounding.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back