- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Myth of arctic meltdown: Satellite images show summer ice cap growing
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:36 am to Patrick_Bateman
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:36 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
But they predict an average global temperature increase of only 1 degree by 2100. However, the rate of temperature increase will continue to rise with passing centuries.
a. if this is true, then it's not a big deal at all and the terrible predictions about our coastal cities being destroyed are overblown
b. assuming this is true, the issue shifts to how much of that increase is due to human behavior
1
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:37 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
Global warming, like evolution, is a long-term process that unfortunately many people fail to grasp.
There's also the fact that a lot of the warmists' short and medium term predictions have failed to materialize, so it's perfectly rational to view their long-term predictions with skepticism.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:39 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
not disprove the entire scientific community!
Does anyone really deny that global warming is occurring?
We have been warming since the last ice age. If we didn't get warmer, we'd be back in the ice age.
What the debate is about concerns whether or not raising our taxes will actually help stop it. Progressives see this as just another opportunity to increase government power and take money away from economy.
Conservatives oppose the politicization of a natural event to increase the power of the state.
The real debate is the extent to which mankind has contributed anything of SIGNIFICANCE to the warming trend, and whether or not ANYTHING we do will have any significant long term effect.
As long as there is water vapor in the air, I am not concerned about our puny contribution of additional CO2. If you want to decrease global temperature, go after the water vapor, not the CO2.
Oh - but we cannot tax water vapor - so go after the carbon.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:40 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
There's also the fact that a lot of the warmists' short and medium term predictions have failed to materialize, so it's perfectly rational to view their long-term predictions with skepticism.
yeah i should add a third variable
this scare is based off models that have proven to be completely inaccurate in predicting the future
now, i get the response (this is science! it's never perfect at first), but we shouldn't be getting everyone into a panic until we have a reliable method to measure what teh frick is going on.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the biggest issue is what effects humans have on this issue, but we can't even have that discussion b/c the self-serving people acting as scientists on this issue can't even agree what is going on with the temperatures that we're using for the discussion
agree 100%
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Those same models, if memory serves, predict a 12-foot rise in sea level by 2400. That would indeed destroy most coastal cities. The current rate of ocean rise is ~1 mm per year, but as I mentioned, the rate is increasing as well.
a. if this is true, then it's not a big deal at all and the terrible predictions about our coastal cities being destroyed are overblown
quote:This is a question I believe is still up for debate. Some scientists are convinced there's enough evidence to prove humans' effect, but many others disagree or state that there's insufficient evidence.
b. assuming this is true, the issue shifts to how much of that increase is due to human behavior
It's basically a moral question, even for global warming experts. How much are we willing to do now, to [possibly] save the world of the future? The direct effects of rising sea levels won't be felt by our children, our grandchildren, or likely even our great grandchildren (unless they live somewhere like New Orleans). And, like you suggest, it's not even known whether we can alter this process. But are we morally obligated to try?
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:49 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:That's fair.
There's also the fact that a lot of the warmists' short and medium term predictions have failed to materialize, so it's perfectly rational to view their long-term predictions with skepticism.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:51 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
It's basically a moral question, even for global warming experts. How much are we willing to do now, to [possibly] save the world of the future? The direct effects of rising sea levels won't be felt by our children, our grandchildren, or likely even our great grandchildren (unless they live somewhere like New Orleans). And, like you suggest, it's not even known whether we can alter this process. But are we morally obligated to try?
well you have to look at it this way, too:
1. what drain on our GDP will it take to enact real change? will that destruction of our future even make it a net benefit for our future? we may destroy our development as a species entirely by using our precious resources on stopping GW, which negates the entire point of this exercise.
2. the odds that we continue for another 300 years without an ice age or extinction event are probably low
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i mean i think the biggest issue is what effects humans have on this issue, but we can't even have that discussion b/c the self-serving people acting as scientists on this issue can't even agree what is going on with the temperatures that we're using for the discussion
Agree.... I'm up in the air to the extent of what impact humans have. I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't think there is anyway that the amount of fuels we burn doesn't have some sort impact on the climate. Whether that is enough to make a significant difference or not, who knows.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:55 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:The consensus answer to this question - at least, in the scientific community - is that yes, we have.
The real debate is the extent to which mankind has contributed anything of SIGNIFICANCE to the warming trend
quote:This is unknown, and basically can't be known with certainty.
whether or not ANYTHING we do will have any significant long term effect.
As you mentioned, this issue has become political in nature. Which is bad for us all, I fear. Not only because government is so stagnant now, but because each political party will devise their own set of "facts" to convince their unwitting - and often uneducated - supporters. It has already begun.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 8:56 am
Posted on 8/31/14 at 8:58 am to Lsut81
quote:
Whether that is enough to make a significant difference or not, who knows.
This is the only debate worth having.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Therein would lie the sacrifice.
1. what drain on our GDP will it take to enact real change? will that destruction of our future even make it a net benefit for our future? we may destroy our development as a species entirely by using our precious resources on stopping GW, which negates the entire point of this exercise.
Those are the questions we have to ask. Not whether global warming exists - it does. Not whether humans are contributing to global warming - we are. But whether we have the ability to alter it, and whether it's worth the cost of trying to alter it.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:02 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:If the science was apolitical, so would be the understanding of it.
because each political party will devise their own set of "facts" to convince their unwitting
In this case it is not.
Even the supposed scientific community ""consensus"" you cite is politicized BS.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:06 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
Therein would lie the sacrifice.
try having that discussion with most people in the AGW religion. hell there was a big video about a year ago that went super viral where a prof basically said "we have no reason not to act like it's happening, even if it isn't, b/c if we're wrong, we just took extra precautions"
they have NO idea of what negative impacts killing the western economy will have on humanity
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:17 am to NC_Tigah
quote:It's really not.
Even the supposed scientific community ""consensus"" you cite is politicized BS.
I suppose people can politicize scientific evidence like anything else, but. . . The evidence itself is at this point compelling. Just look in the leading scientific journals - Nature, Science, etc. There truly is a consensus on certain things.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:24 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
I suppose people can politicize scientific evidence like anything else, but. . . The evidence itself is at this point compelling.
I'm having trouble seeing the all the wonderful evidence due to the stacks of money BILLIONAIRE Al Gore is blocking my view with.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:25 am to Patrick_Bateman
quote:It really is. This has been discussed here several times. Forbes and others have broken down the basis for determining the "consensus". It was based on a misleading survey . . . at best.
It's really not.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm in the same boat on one side you have a group hiding behind the 'science' label who are creating a disaster to ensure their financial well being on the other side, you have a group that is reacting to the above abuses by creating their own facts and methods i mean i think the biggest issue is what effects humans have on this issue, but we can't even have that discussion b/c the self-serving people acting as scientists on this issue can't even agree what is going on with the temperatures that we're using for the discussion
Pretty much true, SF.
ETA, but here is the bottom line. Even if temps are on the rise - and it's because of humanities' technological/population effects - I think all agree that the reactionary fear (and it's economically-crippling 'remedies') is based on FUTURE speculation with regard to CURRENT population and technology. And the supposed dire effects...are spread over decades/centuries.
So, what are the chances that both factors - population and technology - remain the same? And that the few degree rise will not, or can not be RADICALLY mitigated/affected by radical change in technology or population?
40 years from now this place won't even resemble today's scenario. There are so many revolutionary high tech advances on the board, that this whole argument is likely to be moot. Just like the grand 'global cooling' thing back in the Hippie days.
And this is assuming that Authoritarians like Islamists or Communists don't blow us all back into the stone age. GW has become a narrative for the advancement of Authoritarian State control. Pure and simple.
Now when the State can show me that they can be trusted, and that the leadership is honest (no lying) will not be corrupted by Power...count me in. Until then...they'll be herding cats.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:47 am to SirWinston
quote:
this is one issue that I have absolutely no clue on what to believe
I studied GW for 10 years. Here is a simple way to look at it:
Proposition: "Should we take measures to combat global warming?"
To justify policy action ALL THREE of these must be true (not 1 of 3; not 2 of 3; all 3):
1. The earth must be warming.
2. Warming must be caused by man.
3. Warming impacts must be really bad.
Let us review:
1. If the earth is not warming why should we fix it? Fact: The earth has only warmed 1 degree in the past 130 years. Pretty pathetic for the label 'warming.'
2. Suppose the earth is warming. Is the warming caused by man? If not then changing man's behavior has zero impact on warming. Therefore, any change in man's behavior is meaningless.
3. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose it is caused by man... is it really bad? There is nothing wrong with CO2. It makes plants grow. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. Should we get rid of water? The earth has always adapted to changes in temp. In fact, the average temp of the earth right now is 55 degrees F. That's a tad cool for me.
Bottom line... GW is fake. The perps generally lie in 3 camps:
a. 3rd world countries that want to rip off the developed world for money (think U.N.)
b. Scientists and institutions who live off the grants..again money (think NASA).
c. De-developers...true haters of capitalism, consumerism and economic growth (think the Unibomber).
Hope this helps.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:50 am to L.A.
So I guess that means the ocean levels have fallen back to their old levels....cause we are all led to believe we would drown by now.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News