Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
I believe the term is "junk science" or so I've heard from this thread. You should fit in well with the economist deniers at least.
If you realized which group was made up of the true extremists, you wouldn't have figured that.
Why would I have to check them? The fact that not one single alarmist group out there has ever been able to point to a projection that has been right, is proof enough that one doesn't exist.
Or, are you suggesting that alarmists are holding back a projection that proves their case?
Once there was forest. Then came ice. It's been melting ever since, save for the small ice ages of the last couple of millennia. Is it inevitable that the far northern forests would return as a matter of natural course? I don't deny carbon is bad, but I do wonder.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Says the guy who jokes about dumping oil on the ground and filling landfills with recyclables. And the pie chart you are referencing is about believers/non-believers, not extremists. There may be more believers in climate change that are "extremists", I'll give you that. Deniers are willing to not have to work to change anything because they don't mind what condition we leave the planet in for future generations.
My "stories" were satirical comments meant to contrast with the ridiculous hypocrisy of anyone claiming a moral high ground for their behavior relative to those whose behavior they deem inferior.
I came into this thread and simply stated my opinion which is: it irritates me that some want to tell others how to live and use resources, while they themselves are contributing to the same "problem." It was not received in a friendly manner, so I responded in the same trollish manner I was treated with.
Someone's driving 63 in a 55 and telling me to stop driving 64. Eff that.
I knew a guy once who said owning an $75,000 vehicle was wrong, even though he himself drove a $45,000 vehicle. What a judgmental hypocrite... :scowl:
Even if you do everything you can, if you use any fossil fuels, drive a car, own items made of plastic, etc etc, you're only .01% less a part of the "problem" than I am. So take your moral haughtiness and......
And future generations? I'm more worried about the economic nightmare we're leaving them (US), and them being slaves to China than I am a little ice melting. I'll trade a few polar bears for my great-grandchilden's freedom.
But then, I'm a kook who thinks people are more special than animals.
I came into this thread and simply stated my opinion which is: it irritates me that some want to tell others how to live and use resources, while they themselves are contributing to the same "problem." It was not received in a friendly manner, so I responded in the same trollish manner I was treated with.
Someone's driving 63 in a 55 and telling me to stop driving 64. Eff that.
I knew a guy once who said owning an $75,000 vehicle was wrong, even though he himself drove a $45,000 vehicle. What a judgmental hypocrite... :scowl:
Even if you do everything you can, if you use any fossil fuels, drive a car, own items made of plastic, etc etc, you're only .01% less a part of the "problem" than I am. So take your moral haughtiness and......
And future generations? I'm more worried about the economic nightmare we're leaving them (US), and them being slaves to China than I am a little ice melting. I'll trade a few polar bears for my great-grandchilden's freedom.
But then, I'm a kook who thinks people are more special than animals.
Correct, but the chart indicates which group is more extreme and which group has a more balanced representation.
I should have said "...which group is more extreme..." But doesn't that imply a bunch of extreme individuals? Or at least more like-minded, less diverse...
I'm fine with junk science.
I'm a junk scientist. Which is fitting because I do garbage can models.
The very use of the word "alarmists" when it comes to current climate change suggests there are still (incredibly) people who believe there is nothing to be alarmed about. Then again, people have always been good at believing the most outlandish things if it makes them feel more secure.
Except there is a right and wrong answer. Having half be wrong isn't a good thing, it is actually bad.
No, no - I expect you to show me all the cool spots in the city I've missed in the past.
No, no - I expect you to show me all the cool spots in the city I've missed in the past.
Ah! That doesn't sound too bad.
US NRC (2011), Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia
US NRC (2011), Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia
I can't wait to see what our resident expert on global food production thinks of that chart and/or the people who did the research.
GrumpiusMaximus
I've Seen Things You People Wouldn't Believe
US NRC (2011), Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia
Q.E.-&%^$*(&-D.
