Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
interesting read on climate change...
- Thread starter binö
- Start date
Fuck Chechnya
I just choked her out for that
redsamurai
Banned
I was waiting for this post. The snarky deflection "always" comes out after you've taken yet another sound beating.
PICK3
New member
redsamurai
Banned
don't get excited.
ps I love autumn in spring. Trees are showing autumn colors cause we got into the 80's but then dipped back into the mid 30's within 30 hours. I'm fuck over this bullshit. I was all set for suns out guns out.
PICK3
New member
I'm high as fugged
youpissmeoff
Banned
Wind is only profitable thru tax credits. Also, you going to take a cross country flight using wind or solar energy?
youpissmeoff
Banned
Natty gas vehicle is burning fuel that is half the cost of your 30 mpg Hyundai and you can buy a NG Honda Civic direct with very little cost. Just excuses.
mrplunkey
New member
I guess the discussion from post #93 to #94 was quite a leap for you.
uamaverick
New member
My solution is to exterminate the jews. That will fix it.
Headholio
New member
Yeah you could buy that civic but you'd have nowhere to fill it up.
Infrastructure needs to grow before NG vehicles will be an attractive option for most people. Its a great option, and it would be nice if it was a more practical option right now.
kx250rider
New member
Wrong
,
Its not a political issue. It has nothing to do with the left. It's like saying cholesterol is liberal.
Think of all the drought, starvation, species extinction, destruction of property, forest fires, increased poverty...
You think you you can just decide what is going on and what will happen?
I know you are a lost cause, but you speaking from an extremely ignorant point of view. Read the links I posted above and get some real information. And I'm still waiting for the article on cow fluorocarbons
Agree to disagree?
It's ironic that you cited cholesterol: Lots of doctors say that cholesterol levels indicate future heart health... But not in all cases. People can live to be 100 with perfectly clear, plaque-free arteries with lifelong off-the-scale cholesterol levels. In fact, my triglycerides are 590+. But 0% arterial blockage and 4.9% body fat. In other words, those who are "sure" of something; one way or the other, are sure only based upon what they have studied and what they believe and perceive as fact.
Charles
mrplunkey
New member
I noticed his cholesterol analogy as well.
We should apply global warming logic to the cholesterol problem:
1) we know that cholesterol can be bad for you
2) we don't know how much is natural and normal ( medical opinion varies) versus what is pathological.
Thus the solution is simple: let 's buy $6 trillion worth of Crestor every year and put it in the water supply.
machine23
New member
Indoctrinated
Headholio
New member
Yeah its not a perfect analogy, but information on cholesterol gives us probabilities for future problems. For example we can know that a person with lipid profile X has 5 times the likelihood of having a heart attack compared with a person with lipid profile Y. It doesn't predict the future for every case, but is very accurate for knowing the overall health of certain populations.
Anecdotes about guys with high cholesterol or smokers who live a long time are just as stupid as anecdotes about global warming isn't real because it is cold today.
Likewise it would be stupid to smoke or ignore a cholesterol problem based on anecdotal evidence, just like it would be stupid to ignore the danger of our continued disruption of the environment.
For smoking, cholesterol, and global warming, the risks are known. there are scientific ways of looking at data that allows us to make accurate predictions, and we have the data.
And by the way, cardiovascular risk of high triglycerides is more complicated, and an interesting topic, but completely different than cholesterol.
Headholio
New member
1 is true and 2 is false. We know what is an unhealthy level of cholesterol. Current recommendations are based on data of people with different levels of cholesterol and likelihood of CVD. There are many studies showing that LDL over 130 increases risk for atherosclerotic progression, and LDL under 100 (even more for under 70) can result in regression of plaque.
And your suggestion about putting Crestor in the water isn't far from the truth. Lipid drugs are the number 1 prescribed drug class. they are a huge benefit for millions of people and will continue to increas. Maybe someday statins will be in the water, like flouride.
The cholesterol thing is a sidetrack, but that's ok. To get back to AGW, AGW deniers are like 400 pound ignorant sedentary slobs saying they don't believe they have health risks.
Headholio
New member
Notice that the skeptics never provide scientific facts becsuse they don't have them. This thread has pointed out the the overwhelming evidence for AGW, the logic behind it, the lack of contrary evidence, and the settled consensus in the scientific community.
The arguments by skeptics pretty much boil down to "I don't believe it because I don't want to". Either that or misinformation about the science that is easily corrected, which I have tried to do.
If you want to disbelieve science, you should disbelieve that cell phone in your pocket. It is a miracle that is just one tiny example of the incredible ability of humans to understand nature and the universe. If science didn't work, you wouldn't have that cellphone. The level of complexity of that cellphone and the human understanding that went into it is really a much more difficult thing to understand than the basic principles of greenhouse gases and the effect on the environment.
The arguments by skeptics pretty much boil down to "I don't believe it because I don't want to". Either that or misinformation about the science that is easily corrected, which I have tried to do.
If you want to disbelieve science, you should disbelieve that cell phone in your pocket. It is a miracle that is just one tiny example of the incredible ability of humans to understand nature and the universe. If science didn't work, you wouldn't have that cellphone. The level of complexity of that cellphone and the human understanding that went into it is really a much more difficult thing to understand than the basic principles of greenhouse gases and the effect on the environment.
mistaballoonhands
Banned
They wont put it in the water unless they figure out the whole rhabdo thing.
Headholio
New member
Right. But cholesterol lowering bottled water might be an option.
That's my idea. All rights reserved.
mistaballoonhands
Banned
Fuck yeah
U
UA_Iron
Guest
By page 7 i feel like I cant even add anything of substance to threads like this that wouldn't be overlooked
global warming made a lot of people rich.
100 years of the "average" temp being higher than usual is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of cyclical climate change periods. Who cares?
Association and causation are tough to separate
global warming made a lot of people rich.
100 years of the "average" temp being higher than usual is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of cyclical climate change periods. Who cares?
Association and causation are tough to separate
kx250rider
New member
I'm with you on this, in a way: It's stupid or foolish to do unnecessary things that we know have the potential of being harmful (to our bodies or to the environment), but there is moderation in all things. In other words, if we're wanting to do our part to prevent unnecessary ozone damage, we can choose to ride a bike to work on a nice day, or we can choose to eat a salad and a plant-based protein when it's convenient and we're watching cholesterol. But we shouldn't have to feel guilty for driving a truck to work if we have to drop off a new refrigerator in a terrible storm, nor should we feel guilty about cholesterol if our Grandma invites us over for home-made chili and pot roast once in awhile. And my personal contribution to environmentalism is that in 46 years, I have never littered, and I pick up other peoples' litter. That doesn't affect the ozone layer one way or the other, but it offsets the Prius drivers who litter regularly out their windows.
But today being Earth Day, I'll have to be disobedient and and use our 15,000-lb flatbed truck to pick up a gum wrapper I saw on the highway at the other end of the county yesterday, then I'll get in the 53,000-lb Cat 963 track loader and use a few dozen gallons of Diesel to bury the gum wrapper in an illegal landfill
Charles
ismaele00
New member
The Economist, is know for being a quite/pretty Climate Change-warmer. On March they published that,
*Climate Science: a sensitive matter
It's interesting, let me copy just the intro:
The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away
Like saying, we're doing the idiot, yes, but we're using money from taxes so, let's keep doing it...
*Climate Science: a sensitive matter
It's interesting, let me copy just the intro:
The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away
Like saying, we're doing the idiot, yes, but we're using money from taxes so, let's keep doing it...
redsamurai
Banned
Oafish and slow, peeps is way ahead of you.
Published March 10, 2008
Study Finds Traces of Drugs in Drinking Water in 24 Major U.S. Regions | Fox News
mrplunkey
New member
Wow. Just wow.
I had used the idea of Crestor in the drinking water as an example of an absurd solution to a real-world problem and our resident liberals ran with it. It does make it easier to understand why they buy-into ridiculous global warming remedies like cap-and-trade.
Maybe I can sell them on the idea of putting fludarabine in the water too. That way, anyone who happens to have leukemia can get treatment as well. After all, you can't be too careful when it comes to these things.
billfred
New member
If you are just using it for the city, you can buy a compressor to fill it up at your house every night. What could be more convenient than that?
If you are going cross country, there is enough filling stations on interstates to get you there. just can wing it like you can with petrol.
redsamurai
Banned
I should have known the multi-layer troll was too complex for you. The plunkster from a couple years ago would have taken his base on ball 4 but like mighty casey you decided you weren't gonna risk strike 3 crossing that plate huh?
mrplunkey
New member
I should have known the multi-layer troll was too complex for you. The plunkster from a couple years ago would have taken his base on ball 4 but like mighty casey you decided you weren't gonna risk strike 3 crossing that plate huh?
Dear God you're retarded.
My only comfort is in the certainty that your personality assures you'll never procreate.
Headholio
New member
I'm with you on this, in a way: It's stupid or foolish to do unnecessary things that we know have the potential of being harmful (to our bodies or to the environment), but there is moderation in all things. In other words, if we're wanting to do our part to prevent unnecessary ozone damage, we can choose to ride a bike to work on a nice day, or we can choose to eat a salad and a plant-based protein when it's convenient and we're watching cholesterol. But we shouldn't have to feel guilty for driving a truck to work if we have to drop off a new refrigerator in a terrible storm, nor should we feel guilty about cholesterol if our Grandma invites us over for home-made chili and pot roast once in awhile. And my personal contribution to environmentalism is that in 46 years, I have never littered, and I pick up other peoples' litter. That doesn't affect the ozone layer one way or the other, but it offsets the Prius drivers who litter regularly out their windows.
But today being Earth Day, I'll have to be disobedient and and use our 15,000-lb flatbed truck to pick up a gum wrapper I saw on the highway at the other end of the county yesterday, then I'll get in the 53,000-lb Cat 963 track loader and use a few dozen gallons of Diesel to bury the gum wrapper in an illegal landfill
Charles
You are changing your angle to a discussion of what is a reasonable approach to address global warming, and I agree that that is a legitimate debate. Whether AGW is real or not, is not a legitimate debate.
Some food for thought on the bigger picture-
Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes
Fuel Fix Exxon’s tax bill outweighs tech giant Apple’s
While the media and the public like to zero-in on who-pays-what in taxes, taxes are not the sole measure of a company’s value to the U.S. Treasury or the U.S. economy.
Companies hire people (who spend and pay taxes) to keep the business running; companies hire other companies (who spend and pay taxes) to do specialized work for them; companies purchase raw materials and goods from other businesses (who spend and pay taxes) to make their products – you can probably see my point. The economic payoff from creating demand for jobs, goods and services is far greater than any one company pays in taxes.
For example, in 2011 alone, ExxonMobil contributed $72 billion to the U.S. economy through activities including taxes, salaries, returns to our investors and payments to other businesses and industries to keep our U.S. operations running. That’s an average of almost $200 million per day pumped into the U.S. economy, and it doesn’t even include the indirect effect of such spending.
The cumulative effect of U.S. oil and natural gas activities accounted for more than $1 trillion of value added to the U.S. economy a year, and about 7.7 percent of U.S. GDP, according to latest data available.
Taxes are important, but they are just one piece of a much bigger picture when it comes to the U.S. economy.
ExxonMobil tax facts ? the ones you won?t see in the news | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog
Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes
Fuel Fix Exxon’s tax bill outweighs tech giant Apple’s
While the media and the public like to zero-in on who-pays-what in taxes, taxes are not the sole measure of a company’s value to the U.S. Treasury or the U.S. economy.
Companies hire people (who spend and pay taxes) to keep the business running; companies hire other companies (who spend and pay taxes) to do specialized work for them; companies purchase raw materials and goods from other businesses (who spend and pay taxes) to make their products – you can probably see my point. The economic payoff from creating demand for jobs, goods and services is far greater than any one company pays in taxes.
For example, in 2011 alone, ExxonMobil contributed $72 billion to the U.S. economy through activities including taxes, salaries, returns to our investors and payments to other businesses and industries to keep our U.S. operations running. That’s an average of almost $200 million per day pumped into the U.S. economy, and it doesn’t even include the indirect effect of such spending.
The cumulative effect of U.S. oil and natural gas activities accounted for more than $1 trillion of value added to the U.S. economy a year, and about 7.7 percent of U.S. GDP, according to latest data available.
Taxes are important, but they are just one piece of a much bigger picture when it comes to the U.S. economy.
ExxonMobil tax facts ? the ones you won?t see in the news | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog
redsamurai
Banned
you're 0-2 already, it's not fun anymore.
mrplunkey
New member
kx250rider
New member
....And whether or not it's affected by human influence (and if so, how much or how little) is debatable, but seems to be not debatable by those on both sides. Sometimes I shock people with how far I'll move to the middle, when the other side does too... I've actually sat at the dinner table with a major Texas conservative politician AND the former president of the San Francisco chapter of the ACLU, and nobody had a black eye afterward
Charles
....And whether or not it's affected by human influence (and if so, how much or how little) is debatable, but seems to be not debatable by those on both sides. Sometimes I shock people with how far I'll move to the middle, when the other side does too... I've actually sat at the dinner table with a major Texas conservative politician AND the former president of the San Francisco chapter of the ACLU, and nobody had a black eye afterward
Charles
was that because you were too busy playing referee?
Headholio
New member
....And whether or not it's affected by human influence (and if so, how much or how little) is debatable, but seems to be not debatable by those on both sides. Sometimes I shock people with how far I'll move to the middle, when the other side does too... I've actually sat at the dinner table with a major Texas conservative politician AND the former president of the San Francisco chapter of the ACLU, and nobody had a black eye afterward
Charles
AGW (athropogenic global warming) is settled science as confirmed by every respected scientific institution around the world. Not some or most, but all of them. Created by man. There is no debate.
Your belief that it is debatable has no basis in fact. If I am wrong, then show us the facts.
You are still focused on politics, and your comment about moving to the middle has no place in this conversation. Global warming is not a political issue and those that say it is, are propagandists. Texas righties and San Fransisco ACLU members have no choice but to agree if a fact is a fact. AGW is scientific reality and political parties have nothing to do with this fact, only with how to respond to it.
Science denial hasn't been fashionable since the middle ages.
kx250rider
New member
Anthropogenic global warming is specifically limited to circumstances created by mankind, so naturally it's 100% created by mankind by default. But then again, that's the same thing as saying "100% of bank robberies were perpetrated by bank robbers" (as opposed to "all crime was perpetrated by bank robbers"). The big picture; whether or not (1) climate change is affected by those acts of humans, and (2) whether or not it's anything to fear anyway, is what I said is in debate...
Charles
Headholio
New member
Debate by who? Sean Hannity vs. 1000's of PhD climate scientists with millions of pieces of evidence?
redsamurai
Banned
what's killing me is that you think you're 2 for 2. It's called batting a donut.
mrplunkey
New member
Oh that's right! You're supposedly a business school graduate who had no idea about revenues versus profits or how global business works.
That's like an English major who doesn't believe in nouns.
Got it.
WoodyO
New member
Wut?
mrplunkey
New member
You obviously don't speak retard.
PICK3
New member
Cybercollege offers a self-paced youtube based curriculum!
mrplunkey
New member
Apparently he hasn't clicked the "global business" button yet.
WoodyO
New member
come again?
redsamurai
Banned
billfred
New member
Stopped reading at Citrus Drove instead of Citrus Grove. Well written and edited article there mate.
If you ever worked in agriculture, you know that there is always a bout of something damaging your crops.
I am a believer in Climate Change but it is pretty common knowledge that warmer more humid climate that we are moving to is better for growing vegetation so the whole premiss this poorly written piece of shit article is off.
redsamurai
Banned
oh stuff grows awesome in a drought...did you think I was doubting that? You were around for the dust bowl right? Now there was an agro boom eh? We need another one of those. Maybe we can get that keystone pipe to take out that acquifer that is the only reason why the dustbowl hasn't come back. I think it's high time it does. I hear cruciferous veggies grow like stage 4 cancer in a dust cloud. 
can't wait.
can't wait.
billfred
New member
oh stuff grows awesome in a drought...did you think I was doubting that? You were around for the dust bowl right? Now there was an agro boom eh? We need another one of those. Maybe we can get that keystone pipe to take out that acquifer that is the only reason why the dustbowl hasn't come back. I think it's high time it does. I hear cruciferous veggies grow like stage 4 cancer in a dust cloud.
Droughts are a normal part of our weather pattern.
Plant's need CO2 to grow. The CO2 content of a greenhouse is well over 1,000 ppm. Significantly higher than the current alarming rate of 400 ppm.
The world produces more food supplies than it ever has.
Earth has had CO2 concentrations up to 4,000 ppm before. Know what it was like then? A big steamy rain Forrest. Saudi Arabia was a jungle.
The earth hade higher C02 concentrations before man arrived and will after man is gone.
But hey it is ok - be part of the uneducated that believe hurricane Sandy is part of climate change when hurricane concentration is at an all time low. Or that the drought is as well when we have had two other drought equally as bad in this century.
I know it is an important part of your Eco system yo buy into all of this. Carry on.
mrplunkey
New member
How dare you present facts that don't agree with his conclusions!
PICK3
New member
RedScam the EF Cuckold(TM) does knot approve!
But that's not saying much when our C02 levels get so high our vegetation begins to release C02 rather than absorbing it; which is what scientists predict will happen.
kx250rider
New member
I predict the end of the Earth some day... And I further predict that many people will profiteer from it for about 1 trillion years in advance.
Charles
Doomsday predictions with no specific date are a very profitable industry I heard.
Headholio
New member
Kudos for at least trying to bring in some facts to have an intelligent discussion. But, these are typical arguments of the head-in-the-sand-ers, and are unconvincing, false, or debunked, as you might easily guess since these arguments do nothing to change the fact that there is no credible debate about the reality of AGW, as I have already documented earlier in this thread.
So is hot weather, cold weather, every kind of weather. Not a very valuable statement.
That might make me happy, if I was a plant, but plants are pretty dumb and would probably forget to look at all the negative ramifications of high CO2.
LOL that was a half a BILLION years ago. Not only were there no humans, there were no dinosaurs.
Again, thats pretty meaningless information.
And I find it hilarious when deniers use climate models to make an argument. So you know the CO2 levels 450 million years ago? How? Climate models. Oh, so scientists are believable?...etc.
Funny you accuse others of being "uneducated" while taking a stance that ignores facts and denies science. But I agree Hurricane Sandy is proof of nothing. Taking one data point to make a case is stupid, but a common tactic of the anti-science group. Scientists don't do that. Scientists look at all the data to find the truth.
But I have not been able to find any credible source that says hurricanes are at an all time low. How about a link?
What I have found is that hurricane frequency is complicated and some models predict increases in storms and some models predict decreases, but the science also predicts storm intensity will increase, and the data shows that storm intensity has increased.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - 21st Century Projections of Intense Hurricanes
As for drought, you are making the same mistake I mentioned above about drawing conclusions from single data points. The sad truth is that drought severity and frequency is increasing.
Study: U.S. drought risk to increase with climate change - MIT News Office
Bottom line: Man generated greenhouse gases are changing the climate, and these changes are occurring faster than any of the natural climate variations of the past. The ecosystem is very sensitive to small changes. Climate changes of the past have led to mass extinctions and dramatic changes in the environment. But those changes have occurred over 10's or hundreds of thousands of years or more. Plants might not care if CO2 goes up. The earth does not have a preference of current tide levels on the coasts or a level 10 feet higher. The earth will go on if areas that get 40" of rain suddenly get 10". It's not about the "end of the world", its about changes that have catastrophic consequences for us.
Headholio
New member
So much for intelligent discussion.
I predict I will die one day. And I don't believe in calories or fat. So I am going to eat bacon wrapped donuts everyday for the rest of my life. In fact, you'd have to be an idiot to not eat bacon wrapped donuts every day and miss out on all that deliciousness just because some "so called scientists" say its bad.
mrplunkey
New member
People used to equate sodium with bacon wrapped-donuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/h...y-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Headholio
New member
Good article Plunkey.
Optimum sodium intake might be slightly in question right now, but the AHA hasn't changed their recommendations and there is no one saying that high sodium diets are good.
But more importantly, this information is coming from "scientific data", so why would we believe it? Plus, its a New York Times article, and you have taught me that they are just a bunch of lying liberals anyway.
mrplunkey
New member
But more importantly, this information is coming from "scientific data", so why would we believe it? Plus, its a New York Times article, and you have taught me that they are just a bunch of lying liberals anyway.
Because liberal retards' eyes gloss over if they see anything that isn't from the NYT, village voice or huffington post.
Headholio
New member
In poker player parlance you have a tell, which means it is obvious when you are floundering. You resort to insults when you have nothing else. Yeah, I'm the retard.
mrplunkey
New member
In poker player parlance you have a tell, which means it is obvious when you are floundering. You resort to insults when you have nothing else. Yeah, I'm the retard.
At least we can both agree you're a retard. See? We've found some common ground.
billfred
New member
Yeah - I don't get that. One of the biggest increases from CO2 is from deforestation . Plants release oxygen.
Headholio
New member
Plants release oxygen and CO2 (CO2 especially at night). I don't think there is a net CO2 increase from plant metabolism under any scenario.
But, if you consider plants as storage vessels for carbon, then they also release CO2 when hey are burned, rot, or are eaten by animals and humans.
So in that sense, deforestation --> Increased CO2 --> warming and drought --> fires and plant death --> More CO2 --> etc.
redsamurai
Banned
of course which is why I think we should detonate the oglalla acquifer. Fuck waiting for the pipeline to do it. Just bunker bust it.
redsamurai
Banned
oh was that the cambrian period? circa 500 fucking million years ago? Do we have any sweet youtubes of people from back then? what was life like for humans "500"
lmao million years ago?
mrplunkey
New member
oh was that the cambrian period? circa 500 fucking million years ago? Do we have any sweet youtubes of people from back then? what was life like for humans "500"
Wow. What an incredibly irrelevant point.
Headholio
New member
Its very relevant if the argument is that high CO2 levels 500 million years ago should give us comfort.
The sea sponges and jellyfish of the time were perfectly happy, so we shouldn't complain?
billfred
New member
I know that is not true. I worked on a project that was going to develop a large gas field that was 45% CO2. We were doing the entire project thru the power plant but the company wanted it to be CO2 neutral. The cheapest solution was planting large forest.
Most of your current climatologist / scientist will tell you the biggest problem with CO2 is deforestation in Brazil and why they do not support ethanol.
redsamurai
Banned
He can't even see the most simple of logic strings anymore.
redsamurai
Banned
Are you capable of even adding 2 + 2 anymore?
Headholio
New member
I agree with the deforestation problem. What did I say that isn't true?
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, I'm sure they can predict the climate and weather patterns from back then dead-on, especially since they can't even explain the trends we're experiencing right now.
Headholio
New member
redsamurai
Banned
of course which is why I think we should detonate the oglalla acquifer. Fuck waiting for the pipeline to do it. Just bunker bust it.
i'll bunker bust your face
mrplunkey
New member
I'm sure you'd like that. You'd lose fewer arguments that way.
redsamurai
Banned
mrplunkey
New member
redsamurai
Banned
Oh this is the part where you do 3rd grade insults as you're walking away with your cock tucked between your legs like a ladyboy. I love this part.
mrplunkey
New member
Oh this is the part where you do 3rd grade insults as you're walking away with your cock tucked between your legs like a ladyboy. I love this part.
Who would have expected homosexually-based hyperbole from you?
Oh... and I'm sure you'd love anything that involves a guy acting like a girl. Just come out of the closet already. It would explain the no-girlfriend-ever thing.
redsamurai
Banned
meh
Similar threads
