Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
1. Stop using the term "eco-nazis". Seriously, it makes you look like a complete and total moron.
2. The Day After Tomorrow received heavy criticism from environmentalists, and I don't know anyone who takes that shit seriously.
"Of course they're going to believe in it, the democrats are lining their pockets."
Oh, the stories I could tell you. (incidentally, that's what partially inspired this thread)
"In any case, eco-nazis keep acting like the world is going to become like The Day After Tommorow, when it blatantly isn't."
And scientists know that.
That movie is a nice movie, as I've heard, though I haven't seen it. However, from what I know of it, the "science" (if it can even be called such) is complete and utter bullshit.
> But that's what all the eco-nazis keep acting like it's gonna be.
This, as well as the fact that you would call them "eco-nazis", is indicative of my saying that they have horrible messaging skills.
> Nyktos:Wasn't it proven that they actually made a bunch of lies and bullshitted everything for political purposes?
No, actually, what was more glaring from that e-mail leak was the obnoxious lack of a conspiracy.
And think about this...would you really consider climate science a great job for financial gain? You have to beg sponsors for research grants all the time, you have to deal with the politics within academia (from academic rivalries to spiteful administrators to funding competition and much more), you have to deal with the politics of the issue that your job involves, and you actually have to churn out research content. And getting involved in politics makes you a lightning rod for controversy--and your own colleagues might not like that. And you might get a hundred grand a year if you're lucky, and that's after slaving through years of being a student and living on meager research stipends and teaching assistantships.
Why the hell would you go into this for the money?
Go into the finance, insurance, and biotech industries, for goodness's sakes! That's where the money is!
> Scaring people into voting for democrats. Make up bullshit, the democrats say they're gonna fix it, scare the public into voting to stop it.
Now what would they gain by doing that? The Republicans have the rich-people vote anyway; nothing to gain by making people vote Democratic. If anything, something to lose.
And I don't know about you, but I've been seeing a dayumn lot of natural disasters and broken weather records lately. Between heat waves in Russia, smashing record snowfall in New England, and fucktons of tornadoes spanning half the freakin' United States lately--with more to come just this week--yeah. Or perhaps I should mention that New York City has actually had to raise water pumps because the sea level is actually rising?
And by smashing I do literally mean smashing. The old Clyde Ford dealership a few miles down the road from us was one of hundreds of roof collapses across the state of Connecticut from this past winter's snowfall. It was like, one blizzard each week, for several weeks straight. We got like three feet of snow in the course of less than two weeks at one point.
...heck, weren't you the one to mention how Texas was having bitterly dry and hot conditions, causing wildfires all across your entire state?
...yeah.
> I'm not saying that rampant pollution or being wasteful or stupid or
what have you is bad, but for Pete's sake, there hasn't been the kind of
conclusive proof of anthropogenic climate change that those in power
would like to have us think.
You haven't been looking, have you? Well, that's okay, because here is just some of that proof.
> -Conserve, replace, and recycle resources whenever possible
An awesome idea for everyone.
> -Use resources efficiently whenever not
Also an awesome idea.
> -Don't let overblown concern that we can somehow affect the state of the
global climate in any significant way guilt you into screwing the
economy over.
And now exactly why are we assuming that doing something about the climate will necessarily involve screwing the economy over?
> Of course they're going to believe in it, the democrats are lining their pockets.
Nah, as I told ya, the Republicans is where the rich donors are. One great example: the Koch brothers.
> I think there were environmental groups claiming "don't shoot the message" on it.
Honestly, I kinda hate that movie; it's really fucking distracting from the actual issue.
Nature is. One more reason why I despise her.
There are times when I'm tempted to go Captain Pollution on Mother Nature, purely out of spite. This is the same planet that has bird-eating spiders, anglerfish and Sarah Jessica Parker, after all.
You haven't heard of the term? It was the main driver behind the Teabaggers (Tea Party protests), for one thing.
Seriously, Climategate gets all the denialists riled up over nothing while they turn their backs to all the shady movements perpetrated by the oil companies.
Because in their current states, the various sources of "green energy" are extremely un-cost-effective. And fluorescent light bulbs are downright dangerous.
Fluorescent light bulbs really don't have as much of an effect on the environment as companies would like you to believe anyways. In fact, that goes for most of their attempts to promote consumption under the guise of environmentalism; less consumption helps a lot more.
From what I remember, one of the largest sources of emissions comes from automobiles.
"If environmentalism's goal is to benefit humanity, then increasing overall consumption and production is a more immediate and meaningful contribution to the overall quality of life for humans in the industrialized and developing worlds."
Quality of life has little to do with consumer products, my dear. All they do is make you want more.
Where do you think consumer products come from, Abyss? They require labor and human resources. Increased consumption leads to more demand for those resources, which leads to more effort put into creating and sustaining those resources. Consumer products don't just magically appear on supermarket shelves.
> Well, I have been wondering just what is causing all these natural disasters.
The heat waves are simply indicative of the increase in
globally-averaged temperatures, which is due to increased concentration
of carbon dioxide in the air causing more of the heat from the ground to
stay on Earth and not go out to space.
The increased rain (see that news the past few days about the breached
levee in Missouri?) and snow (that Clyde Ford building is still a
collapsed wreck, since no one's using the building right now and no
one's bothered to clean it up) is because the more you heat up water the
more it evaporates. You know how a hot shower steams up the bathroom
more than a cold shower does, right?
Now the earthquakes, those have absolutely nothing to do with the
climate. (To my knowledge at least. I damn well hope they don't.)
> There are times when I'm tempted to go Captain Pollution on Mother
Nature, purely out of spite. This is the same planet that has
bird-eating spiders, anglerfish and Sarah Jessica Parker, after all.
I can't help but lol at this. That said, I think you forgot every human not named Sarah Jessica Parker.
> Because in their current states, the various sources of "green energy"
are extremely un-cost-effective.
And the first time you drove a car, your gas mileage was probably pretty
low and you probably drove too slowly. The first time you cooked a
meal, you probably didn't do quite as well as a master chef.
Might I remind you that computers used to cost several thousand dollars
apiece? For far less processor speed, RAM, and hard drive space?
Now, consider that alternative energy technology, apart from nuclear power, is pretty much still in its infancy...
> And fluorescent light bulbs are
downright dangerous.
Assuming that you don't go around smashing incandescent light bulbs willy-nilly, they should pose little threat to you.
> I'll take consumption over the environment any day of the week. If
environmentalism's goal is to benefit humanity, then increasing overall
consumption and production is a more immediate and meaningful
contribution to the overall quality of life for humans in the
industrialized and developing worlds. If environmentalism's goal isn't
to benefit humanity, then they've got their heads in the wrong place.
I thought austerity was in vogue, not consumption.
"Steve McIntyre"
Ohohoho!
Sorry, neighbor, but I'm not going back there.
empty and half full. The bad thing is that we humans are indeed
bastards, but the good thing is that we humans have the ability to stop
being bastards.
^^^^ Do you want me to go through that wall of text and pick out everything that's wrong with it?
Here are just some samples:
> sunspots
They're an 11 year cycle. That timescale does not explain increasing
temperatures over a hundred-fifty year period at the very least. (Those
temperature records go back to 1850, right? Says it right there.)
> temperature records go back to 1850
Wait, if you're only so sure of temperature records back 'til then, what
makes you so sure of things like the Medieval Warm Period? I don't
know of any history book that says that 1850 was in the middle ages.
> carbon dioxide only accounts for 9% of greenhouse gases, what about water vapor?
So I guess you agree that increased carbon dioxide does have a warming
effect. Not that much, right? By itself it might not. But remember
what I said about the steamy hot shower?
> total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
currently 385ppmv after a rise of 78ppmv in the last
century..."extremely tiny"
Yo. 78/385 = 20.26%. If you had a hundred dollars and I gave you $20.26, would you call that a tiny increase?
Not to mention that that piece can't seem to make up its mind whether
warming is actually occurring. First it says that evidence of warming
was there but has since been "corrected", but then it says that climate
change really is happening.