*** Official Global Warming Thread ***

I guarantee that our only hope is geoengineering artificial trees and reforestation. Before biofuels and wind/solar/nuclear are up to economic par, we will have used ~80% of the planet's fossil fuels, and global temperatures will skyrocket. You heard it here first, and several decades from now, you'll think back and be like damn that crazy cunt wuf was right.

We're currently at ~.8 degree C above pre-industrial global temperature, and we're stuck with ~1.5C already due to lag effects. Also, pollution byproduct of fuel burning is currently reducing global temperatures by ~1C (smog reflects sunlight). This means that we're actually stuck with ~2.5C.

At some point over the next couple decades, people will wake up due to the arctics being entirely gone and sea level rising due to Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, but corporate interests will spread misinformation with the same gusto seen in the current health care debate.

By this time we will be stuck with ~4C due to atmospheric CO2 levels, and the dramatic increases in GHG output from feedback loops like reduced/eliminated oceanic absorption, reduction of heat reflection by polar ice, permafrost melting, and rain forest deforestation

Scientists claim that 2C is disaster, 4C is omgwtf pandemic, and 6C is mass annihilation and a return atmospheric conditions in which mammals did poorly and reptiles thrived. Data has shown that the smart money is on the worst case scenarios modeled by well understood science being way too vastly conservative. In fact, a huge number of known factors pushing global warming have not currently been modeled by anybody because they do not understand them enough to be able to break them down statistically with a low margin of error, despite the fact that the science shows that they're major factors in global warming.

There is a point of no return. We will not know when we've passed it until decades after passing it, but we have reason to believe that we may have ALREADY passed the point of no return i.e. the entire planet could go carbon neutral overnight, yet the planet would still continue warming due to triggered feedback loops.

Our hope is in R&D of artificial trees being successful enough to be implemented on a large enough scale at some point well beyond crossing the point of no return. We do not yet know whether or not this is even possible.

Another pseudo-hope is in biofuels. Enthusiastic scientists claim that we will be able to manufacture biofuels more cheaply than oil in five years time. I certainly hope so, but if this happens there will no doubt be many obstacles that keep it from becoming the majority source of energy for some time. Many of these factors are the unknown ones that come along with R&D, and other factors are the ones that come from special interests battling against change.

I estimate that peak oil and perhaps peak coal will be well in decline in as little as two decades. What this means is that we will have used the vast majority of fossil fuels available, and what that means is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be significantly higher than today. Peak fossil fuels will come sooner than expected due to the exponential function and the fact that the global economy is ever increasing at a rapid pace. In fact, it is very likely that we are already in an artificial plateau of peak oil, and sometime in the next decade we will plummet.

The shit is going to hit the fan in our lifetime, and I'm going to laugh my ass off at all the superstitious dumbfuck deniers who wouldn't know a fact if they were butt raped by an encyclopedia

Here is a lecture that doomsayers may find interesting. It's less of a scientist lecturing, more of an activist, but the presented data does not disagree with the science except perhaps only slightly in certain areas. It's overall quite accurate

http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_I...uth_Dan_Miller

Why do you say this is all scientific fact yet you cant show us an actual scientist talking about it?

I've posted some stuff direct from scientists in the past, and didn't want to repeat it. I've wanted to make a global warming thread for some time instead of occasionally posting in the random thread, and I used this brand new video as the time to do so. Also, referencing journalism is not inherently inferior to referencing the raw science UNLESS the journalism is being challenged on accuracy based on science.

Here's the most recent interview with Jim Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists

http://fora.tv/2009/05/26/Scientist_...Climate_Change

Here's a recent article by the same guy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jam..._b_108766.html

Here's a free online book by David MacKay, a scientist detailing what it would take to battle global warming

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...1/page_2.shtml

Here's the synopsis of the book

http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf

Here's one of the more recent publications by scientists at MIT about 'up to date' models on global warming between now and 2100. These models have not factored in a TON of factors for the reasons I mentioned in the OP.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Here's by far the best youtube channel I've found about climate change. The director of the channel is an artist, but as you watch the videos you'll see that he references scientific data and scientists like crazy to back up his assertions

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

A lot of what I say about global warming is from memory due to not remembering the source, but I am diligent at making sure that my sources are backed up by real science. There are few things I loathe more than people making shit up or not using logic

It's a good sign that you're questioning your source. That's representative of having a head on your shoulders

Edit: some of the OP is me making predictions based on my understanding of the factors. I'm an analyst at heart

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1253/manbearpig.jpg

IT'S NOT REAL MAN.

cost of doing nothing x probability that gw is real > cost of doing something x probability that it's fake

edit: of course for any doomsday scenario that has a non-zero chance of occuring, the left side will be greater than the right side regardless. To invalidate my argument, just replace global warming with "hell" (maybe them jeebus nuts aren't so nutty after all!).

(in other words, ignore this post.)

does anyone seriously believe that GW ain't real?

Even the nutters in big companies making money from oil etc who claim it ain't true, know it is. They just don't give a fuck cause they're making so much money.

just a question of how bad it gonna be.

I seriously doubt global warming at this point.

That is in response to WillburForce's question.

In all honesty, I haven't seen anything proven yet that can't be discounted in some way. Granted, it is a big risk, but in all reality, I'm worried about many other things.

I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion?

Plus, the negative PR that people receive because of GW is amazing. For GW to be taken seriously, you have got to get better spokespeople. Al Gore, Michael Moore, and others only bring disgrace to the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I seriously doubt global warming at this point.

That is in response to WillburForce's question.

In all honesty, I haven't seen anything proven yet that can't be discounted in some way. Granted, it is a big risk, but in all reality, I'm worried about many other things.

I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion?

Plus, the negative PR that people receive because of GW is amazing. For GW to be taken seriously, you have got to get better spokespeople. Al Gore, Michael Moore, and others only bring disgrace to the cause.

---

Disinformation works. In a world where most people don't know shit, it's easy to tear down any one on anything.

I bet you could demonstrate the effectiveness of flooding the limit forum with advice like "fold/raise to 3-bets preflop." You get enough people trying to convince everyone that this advice is solid and it will eventually become solid in the eyes of people who don't know any better.

I can't really understand why you think Al Gore brings disgrace when you know the only people disgracing him are his political enemies.

I hate getting into politics these days because it's just seems like its a game of murky waters and the winners are the ones who pour the most ink (though im sure pouring the ink is a shit ton of fun). It's so much easier just to say "Fuck that, I'm only here for how ever many more years. I'm just gonna turn down the noise."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion?

---

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

"Fuck that, I'm only here for how ever many more years. I'm just gonna turn down the noise."

---

Awesome.

I don't think many serious people deny that human-caused climate change exists (although the theory that a relatively small increase will bring about Armageddon due to feedback loops is far less of a scientific consensus). It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

I don't think many serious people deny that human-caused climate change exists (although the theory that a relatively small increase will bring about Armageddon due to feedback loops is far less of a scientific consensus). It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty.

---

It's a fair suggestion but if the 3 billion poorest people become more affluent, isn't that just going to lead to an increased demand for goods that will both consume our resources quicker and lead to increases in atmospheric CO2?

Reducing our carbon footprint now also would require vast amounts of resources initially but it's an investment with hopefully a greater return in the short term than trying to vitalize some immmature economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty.

---

Call me a sceptic, but I don't think those are the 2 options on the table for the peoples with the dollah dollah bills yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

It's a fair suggestion but if the 3 billion poorest people become more affluent, isn't that just going to lead to an increased demand for goods that will both consume our resources quicker and lead to increases in atmospheric CO2?

---

Yes, but if your main goal is the well-being of mankind (not the level of atmospheric CO2) that isn't a bad thing. Also if people are more affluent they'll be better able to adapt to global warming, as opposed to the poor people in coastal regions like Bangladesh who will simply die in huge numbers if they stay poor and sea levels rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Call me a sceptic, but I don't think those are the 2 options on the table for the peoples with the dollah dollah bills yo.

---

The point is that when you drain trillions of dollars from the world economy it's the poor who are hurt the most. While I agree there's a lot we could do to reduce global poverty, regardless of anything we do or don't do about global warming, that doesn't change the fact that bills like the cap-and-trade before Congress right now would be directly responsible for keeping millions of people in poverty.

P.S. In some ways feeding the poor and reducing global warming are the 2 options on the table. For instance, the recent increase in world food prices has a lot to do with the increased use of biofuels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty.

---

Call me a sceptic, but I don't think those are the 2 options on the table for the peoples with the dollah dollah bills yo.

---

A girls gotta get paid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I seriously doubt global warming at this point.

That is in response to WillburForce's question.

In all honesty, I haven't seen anything proven yet that can't be discounted in some way. Granted, it is a big risk, but in all reality, I'm worried about many other things.

I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion?

Plus, the negative PR that people receive because of GW is amazing. For GW to be taken seriously, you have got to get better spokespeople. Al Gore, Michael Moore, and others only bring disgrace to the cause.

---

How many decades did it take before tobacco companies stopped fighting the obvious argument that smoking is bad for you and causes lung cancer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Yes, but if your main goal is the well-being of mankind...

---

Idealistic but unfortunately, that's not the main goal of too many policy makers, certainly not if the population being harmed is outside one's own borders.

Not until aliens invade, anyway.

doesn't the well being of mankind depend alot on the well being of the planet?

the world would probably be a better place if mankind wasn't in it.

threehuggers itt, in before someone tells halv to be the first to gtfo, etc

edit: also acknowledging good rillajoke

People denied the idea of the number 0 for quite some time in some areas.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I seriously doubt global warming at this point.

That is in response to WillburForce's question.

In all honesty, I haven't seen anything proven yet that can't be discounted in some way. Granted, it is a big risk, but in all reality, I'm worried about many other things.

I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion?

Plus, the negative PR that people receive because of GW is amazing. For GW to be taken seriously, you have got to get better spokespeople. Al Gore, Michael Moore, and others only bring disgrace to the cause.

---

Watch the youtube videos by greenman I posted. His channel is exclusively devoted to debunking anti-global warming myths by using scientific data and consensus.

And anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not something that can be denied. Not. One. Bit. At the very fundamental of AGW is pure and simple, established chemistry and physics. We know that humans are emitting masses of CO2, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), we know that CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels, we know that CO2 level increases correlates with human emissions, we know that this all correlates with the documented warming, and we have exactly ZERO other explanations for something other than human emissions that could be causing this. AGW is 100% undeniable simply based on the chemistry, physics, and raw data.

What you are referring to are people lying, the uneducated public bandwagoning along like normal, and in some ways a very tiny minority of unqualified scientists saying that 'the jury is still undecided'.

An example of people lying is sun spots. All AGW deniers are gung ho about how 'omg agw culd be caused by solar activity omg'. Except that this has been studied, and the data shows that indeed sun spots are not responsible for the GW trend from pre-industry. But the liars don't care, they just keep at it. Exactly how creationists have been lying for decades about the same garbage over and over

Then the uneducated public (the majority of public) clings to these lies because they don't like change and think they're perfect and want to feel all hunky dory before they die and go to heaven to be with their invisible sky daddy.

And the super tiny minority of scientists who doubt AGW can be found in just about every field. They always exist, but their existence isn't without many significant factors that show them to be wrong. They're never actual scientists who are currently heavily active in the particular field, they often have conflicts of interest, and what they say disagrees with the vast majority of scientists. Now, let's say your kid is sick and you go to the doctor, and the doctor says he need antibiotics, but you're skeptical so you go to another doctor, same diagnosis, another doctor, same diagnosis, then you go to a witchdoctor and he says that your kid doesn't need antibiotics because he's not sick. In fact, your kid has an evil spirit inside him that can only be expunged via holy water. Who you gonna listen to, the medical profession with the science to back them up, or the quack fringe dumbfuck who seems like he's making shit up?

Take evolution for example. Did you know that there exists a biologist who disagrees with evolution? This man's name is Michael Behe, and he's Intelligent Design's best man, when they need to present their best evidence for ID, they go to Behe.

Now, did you know that evolution is 100% fact? Did you know that we actually understand more about evolution than we do gravity? Since this is true, then how can Behe be a biologist who disagrees with evolution? Well, here's how, 1) he hasn't published a scientific paper in a decade or so (this means he is not an active scientist working in the relevant field despite the fact that he got a biology degree at one point, and thus his opinion is completely moot), 2) his assertions about ID and evolution have been proven 100% false over and over and over by simply using data and even in a court room in Pennsylvania, and 3) even Behe himself admits that he agrees with common descent, yet he neglects to acknowledge that common descent IS evolution. He is simply espousing that oft used but little known logical fallacy called cognitive dissonance

AGW is exactly like the 'evolution debate'. 100% AGW and evolution are true, but don't tell that to dumbfucks who try to skew it for whatever reason.

Also, you say that a lot of scientists are disputing AGW. They're not. You've been lied to. When examining these lists of scientists that deniers tout, you'll actually see that the majority of these scientists have claimed to be misread and have asked to be taken off the list but haven't been taken off because liars lie, many of them are not actually climatologists, instead they're like economists or social scientists, and their opinion carries exactly zero relevance, some on the list have massive conflicts of interest i.e. they work for oil companies or something, and the rest of the super small minority have been ostracized due to bad science or something.

You are being lied to. AGW is as much a fact as thermodynamics. Don't fall prey to misinformation just because it's easy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

(although the theory that a relatively small increase will bring about Armageddon due to feedback loops is far less of a scientific consensus).

---

Yeah, that's definitely not consensus. Even I am not saying that's how it is. The consensus, however, on this is 'we don't know', but the possibility definitely remains that we have already passed the point of no return. Do I think we have? I have no clue. Does it matter? Not really, actually.

My analysis has so much to do with speculated future emissions. It is widely believed that there exists a point of no return, but where that is and exactly how far that goes, nobody knows. However, historical data gives us ample reason to believe that it could take us to a temperature where mammals did poorly, and where the planet is a dramatically different place.

Will this kill the planet? No. Not even close. The planet aint gonna die until the sun engulfs it in 5 billion years or if it collides with another planet. Will all life die? No, lots of life will survive as lots of life has survived throughout many massive warming and cooling and extinction events throughout prehistory. But could we turn the earth into a place not suitable for humans? Yes. We actually do not know exactly how unsuitable though.

But you already know all this I'm sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Yes, but if your main goal is the well-being of mankind (not the level of atmospheric CO2) that isn't a bad thing. Also if people are more affluent they'll be better able to adapt to global warming, as opposed to the poor people in coastal regions like Bangladesh who will simply die in huge numbers if they stay poor and sea levels rise.

---

The hypothetical adaptation to AGW is unrealistic since, well, it's not like everybody's going to all of sudden change their ways and turn the poor majority into middle class. Adaptation to AGW can only happen so much, and this adaptation will only happen for the wealthy. Part of this is because the poles warm dramatically more quickly than the equator.

Also, I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability.

But even if it was just about shifting arable regions, that wouldn't happen overnight, humans will not be 100% on the ball, and billions will suffer because of it

And I don't understand the distinction between focusing on modernization vs focus on AGW eradication, and the former being the humanitarian option. Modernization only makes AGW faster and ultimately more severe, and AGW is speculated to be responsible for the misery of billions in the future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

How many decades did it take before tobacco companies stopped fighting the obvious argument that smoking is bad for you and causes lung cancer?

---

Not to mention that corporations have gotten so much better at it. As bad as it was fighting the tobacco industry, it's nothing like what it is fighting the same people currently. Take the health care debate in the US for example. This is corporate lies at their finest. They've learned a lot from their mistakes in the past. We have here liberalism coming to a head to head battle with corporatism, and liberalism is going to lose abysmally.

Actually, liberalism could win if a coalition of Congressional progressives forced Obama to disregard his paycheck from the insurance industry by making him know that any of his inadequate bills will be voted down and he will be primaried in 2012. I give this about a .5% chance of happening though.

But I digress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalvSame

doesn't the well being of mankind depend alot on the well being of the planet?

the world would probably be a better place if mankind wasn't in it.

---

This is actually an interesting point. On a purely philosophical level, a strong argument can be made that extinction of the human species would be more moral than business as usual.

We seem to disregard the fact that hundreds of millions live in horrible misery, and they have children and grandchildren and so on, and most of the offspring also live in misery. Personally, I do not believe that the suffering of one person justifies the happiness of a billion people, so I have absolutely no philosophical qualms with homo sapiens going extinct.

The bright side of AGW may just be that if it truly comes to mass destruction, at least there would no longer be innumerable amounts of suffering humans since, well, we'd all be dead and unable to feel and unable to bring more children into a world of tragedy.

Not something I put into any practical means, but I'm not going to pretend like humans are a special and superior race that aren't parasitic and inhumane, and that perhaps there would be less collective suffering of life if we just weren't around

So, let me ask this.

With the majority of commenters in here being convinced global warming exists...

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause? How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause? How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So, let me ask this.

With the majority of commenters in here being convinced global warming exists...

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause? How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause? How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

---

How are you measuring damage? Like driving my car for 1 hour will increase the world temp by .001 degree C over the next 10 years?

answer to Monty.

thats why we need to find a decent, non-harming energy source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So, let me ask this.

With the majority of commenters in here being convinced global warming exists...

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause? How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause? How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

---

How are you measuring damage? Like driving my car for 1 hour will increase the world temp by .001 degree C over the next 10 years?

---

No, I'm measuring it by how many people bitch about global warming but do nothing to prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

answer to Monty.

thats why we need to find a decent, non-harming energy source.

---

There is not one yet, not that I am aware of. All energy sources damage something.

Coal pollutes and is supposedly finite.
Oil pollutes and is supposedly finite.
Nuclear power pollutes and is supposedly nearly infinite.
Solar power produces damage in the production of solar panels.
Wind power is inefficient and works for crap, also produces damage in the production of devices to capture it.
Wave power has not been effectively harnessed, but likely will damage the ecosystem of the ocean in some way.
Natural gas is pretty clean, but damages the environment in collection.

So what sources look promising at this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So, let me ask this.

With the majority of commenters in here being convinced global warming exists...

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause? How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause? How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

---

How are you measuring damage? Like driving my car for 1 hour will increase the world temp by .001 degree C over the next 10 years?

---

No, I'm measuring it by how many people bitch about global warming but do nothing to prevent it.

---

Haven't you ever seen those studies where big groups of people are usually slow to action because they choose to spread the blame of faillure around the group.

If you and 19 others fail to stop some woman from being raped, it's not like ONLY you did nothing. With 19 other people, if no one did anything it's because no one could. So its no big deal.

With 7 billion people, some fraction of those people being rich, smart, capable, equipped, whatever to do something, that's plenty of bread to spread my blame peanut butter all over!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

answer to Monty.

thats why we need to find a decent, non-harming energy source.

---

There is not one yet, not that I am aware of. All energy sources damage something.

Coal pollutes and is supposedly finite.
Oil pollutes and is supposedly finite.
Nuclear power pollutes and is supposedly nearly infinite.
Solar power produces damage in the production of solar panels.
Wind power is inefficient and works for crap, also produces damage in the production of devices to capture it.
Wave power has not been effectively harnessed, but likely will damage the ecosystem of the ocean in some way.
Natural gas is pretty clean, but damages the environment in collection.

So what sources look promising at this point?

---

Geothermal. Get a lazer drill like in the move The Core, bore right down to the hot, wet center of the Earth and use her sweet energy to power the globe!

Also, misinformation works. I don't know shit about any of this stuff. Probably on par with you*, but we'll still manage an almost meaningful conversation about it. One that could change the minds of some other uninformed.

*not saying that to be insulting, just saying that I dont think many people spend enough time actually studying these things certainly not as many as you can find making expert opinions on it

Monty,

The carbon footprint of somebody who simply lives in modern society is extremely high. The mere act of using USD currency and being protected by military makes our footprint much higher than people in Somalia 'living' off $1 a day.

Carbon neutrality is possible. Read the synopsis in MacKay's book that I linked. We've had the technology to not pollute the atmosphere yet live a modernized life for some time now.

A mistake many people make is looking at action to change results in a linear fashion. Case in point: The carbon footprint of a gas guzzling, business as usual, Fox news watching meat eater is immensely lower than the carbon footprint of somebody like Al Gore*, but people like Al Gore are the ones who are actually doing what it would take to keep AGW from getting out of control. This is not something in anyway that can be approached on the individual level. The only thing that will ever have an effect on AGW is mass public opinion and governmental policy.

This is exactly like elections and voting. How I vote has zero effect on the outcome of the election because I live in a very blue district and I would vote blue. Now, if I truly wanted to make a difference in the political arena I would have to at the very least move to a swing district or become an activist that would garner a bunch of shift in voting outcomes. As it is now, even though my vote is technically one vote, it is also practically worthless due to these other factors based in the reality that we're not dealing with a black and white, linear system. But that doesn't keep me from understanding the system, and doing what I can to make changes

*Al Gore's carbon footprint is insanely high because his actions generate tremendous economic activity which is energized by fossil fuels, and very high GHG activities as well (like air travel. FYI, one round trip flight around the US generates more carbon footprint than a person produces in an entire year of automobile driving)

Another note on clean, renewable energy: like I said, we have the tech already, but we also have super advanced theory which we have yet to fully understand and engineer due to lack of funds. If the US govt put 100 billion $$$/month into researching this theory and developing current tech, we would be carbon neutral in just a decade or so, and would be pretty close to or already implementing nuclear fusion (holy grail of energy)

At current trends, governments will not put cash anywhere close to what we need for at least several decades, and nuclear fusion will also not be solved for a long ass time. Money talks, we're lucky that we actually have the tech that we have given how little money gets put into it. We can thank the entirety of modernization on the top 1% of intellectuals of whom the vast majority went/go through life broke, but didn't care because they were driven by the love of the discovery

If the entirety of the human race of the last couple centuries were as ingenuous as these top 1% of intellectuals (read: people like Galileo, Jonas Salk, Ed Witten being the norm) then we would likely be currently living in a technological world like what 2200 is going to be or something crazy. It's not because of common folk or powerful folk that we've gotten anywhere scientifically (and philosophically), but because of the intelligent few, most of whom have been/are in a constant fight against the uneducated and powerful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause?

---

I don't own one.

Quote:

---

How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause?

---

I don't play anymore.

Quote:

---

How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

---

I don't know, but it probably wasn't worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause?

---

I don't own one.

Quote:

---

How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause?

---

I don't play anymore.

Quote:

---

How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause?

---

I don't know, but it probably wasn't worth it.

---

+1

Well, I'm no expert and don't claim to be. I'm living my life the best I know how and to be honest, I really don't give a lot of thought to most of this debate. The main reason is I would be more likely to listen to someone like Ed Begley Jr. who walks the talk, rather than Al Gore, who while generating a lot of economic momentum does so in a destructive and in my opinion, poor way.

Yes, humans in America do more damage than those in Somalia, so we are to be punished for our success? Of course we are, by instead of encouraging us to live responsibly (in the environmentalist opinion) we will be punished by taxing our 'carbon footprint' which I still think is BS, but I'm forming that opinion without full information.

At some point you have to let the experts debate it out, so I'm dropping out of this convo... I don't have time to study up on it and give you the higher intellectual debate you want to achieve... but my thoughts focus on what I've been taught by a geologist I used to have as an instructor as well as my current level of understanding of the earth being a closed ecosystem, there isn't anything built or destroyed, just changed... I hear data being thrown around both ways, some say we are cooling, some say we are warming, there are facts both ways...

So who is right? Who knows, maybe my kid will. I for one don't think the facts add up, but again, I'm no pro at this stuff and don't have the time to become one... some smart scientists will eventually be able to prove something definate one way or another, probably after we all have cancer or something... I'm out, I shouldn't have even started as I don't have the time to follow up on it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability.

---

I think it's hard to argue that global warming improve arability anywhere, even if it decreases the amount of arable land in the world as a whole. That's not what I meant by adaptation though, I meant that we'll need another green revolution so we can grow crops on land that currently isn't arable. Most of the world's crops are grown on land that was considered useless before technology turned it into good cropland. I'm convinced that the answer to global warming (and famine in general) is to engineer new breeds of crops that are resistant to drought, flooding, changes in temperature, or whatever else happens to the climate. If I had to start my education over again, I'd probably pursue this area of research as a career because I think it's the most important research being done in the world today, but whatever, I'm happy with what I'm doing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Yes, humans in America do more damage than those in Somalia, so we are to be punished for our success?

---

EDIT: "so we are to be punished for our success" really rubs me the wrong way. Another reason why I hate politics.

Quote:

---

I hear data being thrown around both ways, some say we are cooling, some say we are warming, there are facts both ways...

---

Disinformation works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability.

---

I think it's hard to argue that global warming improve arability anywhere, even if it decreases the amount of arable land in the world as a whole. That's not what I meant by adaptation though, I meant that we'll need another green revolution so we can grow crops on land that currently isn't arable. Most of the world's crops are grown on land that was considered useless before technology turned it into good cropland. I'm convinced that the answer to global warming (and famine in general) is to engineer new breeds of crops that are resistant to drought, flooding, changes in temperature, or whatever else happens to the climate. If I had to start my education over again, I'd probably pursue this area of research as a career because I think it's the most important research being done in the world today, but whatever, I'm happy with what I'm doing now.

---

If i had to start all over again, Id get into anti-gravity. Screw this place! M-A-R-S Mars, bitches!

I was cold this summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

I was cold this summer.

---

Turn down the A/C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HalvSame

doesn't the well being of mankind depend alot on the well being of the planet?

the world would probably be a better place if mankind wasn't in it.

---

Well first of all I think it's disingenuous to say human beings' first concern should be the environment and then to say that the best thing for the environment would be if humans were extinct.

Our quality of life depends on a lot of factors and the environment is just one of them. Others include the supply of food and clean water, good government / less corruption and conflict, prevention and cure of communicable disease, a quality education system, etc. I don't agree with prioritizing the environment over all these factors, especially not by passing the Kyoto Protocol or a cap-and-trade bill that would definitely take resources away from other uses that we depend on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

I was cold this summer.

---

Turn down the A/C.

---

I don't have A/C. I'm trying to reduce my carbon footprint and do something to prevent the rapid acceleration of global warming.

This summer just sucked, is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Another note on clean, renewable energy: like I said, we have the tech already, but we also have super advanced theory which we have yet to fully understand and engineer due to lack of funds. If the US govt put 100 billion $$$/month into researching this theory and developing current tech, we would be carbon neutral in just a decade or so, and would be pretty close to or already implementing nuclear fusion (holy grail of energy)

---

You don't know that. There are a lot of possible alternatives to fossil fuels and no one knows which one our economy will eventually depend on. The US government should promote research into many different options, not just decide that one of them (i.e. nuclear fusion) is the future and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on what might be a dead end. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse by always complaining about the ethanol rule, but this is what happens when the government decides to force a technology on people in large quantities before it's ready. We're wasting billions of dollars, increasing the price of food which makes people poorer all over the world, and we're not even increasing our energy efficiency or reducing our carbon footprint! The 10% ethanol requirement is one of the worst policies the US has (and that's saying a lot), it benefits no one other than corn growers and a few big corporations.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2194

Also when you mention people like Galileo or Jonas Salk who made miraculous discoveries essentially on their own, doesn't that contradict the idea that scientific genius can be dictated from above by spending hundreds of billions of dollars? Science progresses in ways no one can predict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Yes, humans in America do more damage than those in Somalia, so we are to be punished for our success? Of course we are, by instead of encouraging us to live responsibly (in the environmentalist opinion) we will be punished by taxing our 'carbon footprint' which I still think is BS, but I'm forming that opinion without full information.

---

Do you think it's somehow the Somalians' own fault they can't afford the luxuries you have? How do you "deserve" them more than them? On most planets the thing you're thinking of is "responsibility", unfamiliar concept for many, I know. I think you would feel about this issue a little differently if it were for example the russians or the chinese responsible for the carbon emissions, would you just say they shouldn't be punished for their success? What if it was Al Qaeda, wouldn't you vote for the government to do everything and anything in its power to stop them? But no, since it's "us", you have a God-given right to do whatever you want with your "hard earned" cash, no matter what the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So who is right? Who knows, maybe my kid will. I for one don't think the facts add up, but again, I'm no pro at this stuff and don't have the time to become one... some smart scientists will eventually be able to prove something definate one way or another, probably after we all have cancer or something... I'm out, I shouldn't have even started as I don't have the time to follow up on it all.

---

Did you read the link I posted? There is no debate, there's just the facts vs the powerful minority lobbyists who profit from denying it. There is absolutely no doubt within the scientific community about global warming being real and that we are contributing to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Well, I'm no expert and don't claim to be. I'm living my life the best I know how and to be honest, I really don't give a lot of thought to most of this debate. The main reason is I would be more likely to listen to someone like Ed Begley Jr. who walks the talk, rather than Al Gore, who while generating a lot of economic momentum does so in a destructive and in my opinion, poor way.

Yes, humans in America do more damage than those in Somalia, so we are to be punished for our success? Of course we are, by instead of encouraging us to live responsibly (in the environmentalist opinion) we will be punished by taxing our 'carbon footprint' which I still think is BS, but I'm forming that opinion without full information.

At some point you have to let the experts debate it out, so I'm dropping out of this convo... I don't have time to study up on it and give you the higher intellectual debate you want to achieve... but my thoughts focus on what I've been taught by a geologist I used to have as an instructor as well as my current level of understanding of the earth being a closed ecosystem, there isn't anything built or destroyed, just changed... I hear data being thrown around both ways, some say we are cooling, some say we are warming, there are facts both ways...

So who is right? Who knows, maybe my kid will. I for one don't think the facts add up, but again, I'm no pro at this stuff and don't have the time to become one... some smart scientists will eventually be able to prove something definate one way or another, probably after we all have cancer or something... I'm out, I shouldn't have even started as I don't have the time to follow up on it all.

---

Okay, I completely understand your position to not want to get into it. I'll just end with a few parting thoughts

Understanding AGW is kind of new, and is advancing rather quickly. An important thing to note, however, is that the trends of new discovery have all been pointing in the same direction. But the 'newness' of AGW is a big reason why several intelligent people, like your geologist instructor, (note that geology != climatology though, important distinction). This newness has made it much easier to not be up to date on research and the public controversy (not scientific controversy) has made it easier to feel skeptical

The earth is not a closed system. We're in constant interaction with particles from outer space (read: sun, but much more as well). The conservation of energy you mentioned isn't really relevant to AGW. It's about the fundamentals of matter, but it has no bearing on how much things can change. The vast majority of Earth's history has been rather inhospitable to mammals, all based on periods of climate change. But I'll go into that more in a different post, I think.

You mentioned that data is thrown around, some say we're cooling, some say we're warming, etc. Well, that's simply not true, but that is what the vast majority of the public thinks. When you look at the actual history and data, you see that scientists said one thing, while the media said another. Here's a 9 minute video that looks at the data on this 'global cooling' issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

Actually, if you put any time into researching this, just watch greenman's other videos. They're entertaining, and addresses the actual data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability.

---

I think it's hard to argue that global warming improve arability anywhere, even if it decreases the amount of arable land in the world as a whole. That's not what I meant by adaptation though, I meant that we'll need another green revolution so we can grow crops on land that currently isn't arable. Most of the world's crops are grown on land that was considered useless before technology turned it into good cropland. I'm convinced that the answer to global warming (and famine in general) is to engineer new breeds of crops that are resistant to drought, flooding, changes in temperature, or whatever else happens to the climate. If I had to start my education over again, I'd probably pursue this area of research as a career because I think it's the most important research being done in the world today, but whatever, I'm happy with what I'm doing now.

---

That's a pretty interesting idea, and quite a tall order to boot.

It would require a lot of genetic manipulation and experimentation, and we could find ourselves in wunderwaffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe It is a legitimate idea, but it is also another one of those can't wait till it's too late to try to figure it out things

Is anybody here old enough to remember the 1970's?

The theory in the 70's was that CO2 was going to bring about the next ice age. I was only twelve, but I remember reading about it in Time or Newsweek magazine. It scared the crap out of me. It didn't happen then and I have no reason to believe the "experts" now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Another note on clean, renewable energy: like I said, we have the tech already, but we also have super advanced theory which we have yet to fully understand and engineer due to lack of funds. If the US govt put 100 billion $$$/month into researching this theory and developing current tech, we would be carbon neutral in just a decade or so, and would be pretty close to or already implementing nuclear fusion (holy grail of energy)

---

You don't know that. There are a lot of possible alternatives to fossil fuels and no one knows which one our economy will eventually depend on. The US government should promote research into many different options, not just decide that one of them (i.e. nuclear fusion) is the future and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on what might be a dead end. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse by always complaining about the ethanol rule, but this is what happens when the government decides to force a technology on people in large quantities before it's ready. We're wasting billions of dollars, increasing the price of food which makes people poorer all over the world, and we're not even increasing our energy efficiency or reducing our carbon footprint! The 10% ethanol requirement is one of the worst policies the US has (and that's saying a lot), it benefits no one other than corn growers and a few big corporations.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2194

Also when you mention people like Galileo or Jonas Salk who made miraculous discoveries essentially on their own, doesn't that contradict the idea that scientific genius can be dictated from above by spending hundreds of billions of dollars? Science progresses in ways no one can predict.

---

Yes, the ethanol business is garbage. I don't know much about it, but I speculate that the details would show that there was much more going on with regards to special interests with that.

What I was getting at wasn't just putting money into one thing. No serious scientist/engineer who understands this stuff even suggests that. Read the synopsis in MacKay's book. He details how UK can go completely clean and renewable with simply current technology (and does this by using a whole plethora of different methods). My comments about nuclear fusion were sort of a side point. While it is indeed the holy grail of energy, we don't know yet if we could ever engineer it up to par. However, we think that that is very likely, but we simply don't know exactly. But yeah, nuclear fusion is way too advanced and far off to deal with AGW.

One thing, though, is that algae biofuels are looking really good. Like ethanol, but actually cost effective and doesn't destroy land. It's one thing to throw money at something, and an entirely different thing to intelligently invest money

And about people like Salk and Galileo, it's not a contradiction to suggest that finances affect science. Salk is an example of something that got done because everybody was scared shitless of polio, and there was a bit of monetary backing. In just a couple years of backing Salk's approach, we went from no vaccine to yes vaccine

Anyways, if you talk to scientists and engineers, they'll tell you that money talks, just like with all other professions. We went to the moon because of pumping money into it, we haven't gone to the Mars yet (or are not much closer) due to lack of funds. Also, increasing finances and popularity increases the talent pool. IMO, we have more 'geniuses' today than ever before because the pool from which these people are selected are much larger than back when Copernicus was around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

Is anybody here old enough to remember the 1970's?

The theory in the 70's was that CO2 was going to bring about the next ice age. I was only twelve, but I remember reading about it in Time or Newsweek magazine. It scared the crap out of me. It didn't happen then and I have no reason to believe the "experts" now.

---

Look two posts up. I linked a video that explains exactly what happened with the 70s.

The popular media (Times and Newsweek) got it wrong. The scientists said one thing, then the media misinterpreted it and said something entirely different. Frighteningly, this is not a rare occurrence in society. Over and over do we see popular media misinterpreting science. Look up Nebraska Man. Prime example of popular media making shit up, then uneducated interests straw manning science.

Was Carl Sagan a scientist? I can't remember, he was so boring I think he was.

He was on a PBS show "Cosmos" in the 80's claiming next ice age from pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

Was Carl Sagan a scientist? I can't remember, he was so boring I think he was.

He was on a PBS show "Cosmos" in the 80's claiming next ice age from pollution.

---

Yes and no. He was mainly an astronomer and cosmologist, and he was heavy into popular publications.

A couple important points here

1) Astronomy != climatology. This is an extremely important distinction in science. On every single subject you can find scientists in other fields who disagree with consensus. But that doesn't matter because they're not qualified. If a biologist says stuff that disagrees with physics consensus, the biologist's opinion can be brushed aside as irrelevant and unqualified. In order for the biologist to express an expert opinion on physics he would need to be involved in physics (and thus would be an accredited physicist as well as biologist)

So when you ever hear anybody say anything about a topic, make sure to examine whether or not they're actually qualified to give an opinion. Now, here I am giving an opinion on topics in which I am unqualified (I'm not a professional scientist of any sort), but I'm also not expressing opinion contrary to consensus. And if an actual climatologist showed up and started telling me how I was wrong and backed it up with data and consensus, I would need to shut my mouth

2) Carl Sagan's Cosmos is a 'popular medium' i.e. speaks to the populous, not the experts. Disconnects between what is said in popular mediums and what is found in science journals are commonplace. What anybody says about anything in popular mediums is not necessarily representative of scientific consensus. If Sagan said that pollution was going to cause global cooling then he misspoke, but even then it doesn't matter what he thought because he was never an active climatologist.

Wuf, at some point, you're gonna look back at this and laugh.

The mass hysteria of today isn't any different than the mass hysteria of the 70's fueled by pop media. The only difference is the number of media outlets spouting the same hypothesis. Even proponents of global warming therory started calling it "global climate change" a few years ago. This was my signal that they don't even believe their own crap.

lololololol

It's global warming!
SCIENTISTS USED TO THINK THE WORLD WAS FREEZING LOL
OK, we'll call it global climate change.
HA FUCK-OS THAT PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT!

<---- drunk woooooo!

The best was my dad who's opinion evolved from THEY SAID ICEAGE! to I DONT THINK CARBON SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A POLLUTANT!

No experts get 30 minutes of airtime 5 days a week because only useless fuck-holes + Rachel Maddow get TV time

Carl Sagan is one bad ass mother shut my mouth

he was the dude that said something like

"All of this. Everything you see, touch, feel and smell is simply what happens when you give hydrogen 13.7 billion years to do it's own thing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

Wuf, at some point, you're gonna look back at this and laugh.

---

Not unless the physical properties of the universe change between now and then.

Here's the disconnect: I'm arguing from the perspective of empirical fact, the opposition is arguing from the perspective of irrational conjecture. The former always wins, and the latter always loses.

Quote:

---

The mass hysteria of today isn't any different than the mass hysteria of the 70's fueled by pop media. The only difference is the number of media outlets spouting the same hypothesis.

---

I'm not sure you understood me

Quote:

---

Even proponents of global warming therory started calling it "global climate change" a few years ago. This was my signal that they don't even believe their own crap.

---

Global warming and climate change are two entirely different things. Global warming is an aspect of climate change, but climate change does not necessitate global warming. Science is precise, and the fields of science that deal with issues like global warming do so under a much broader subject of climate change. It's called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, and it deals with all data that affects climate, not just one aspect of climate. Sometimes they say climate change when they mean climate change, and sometimes they say global warming when they are specifically addressing global warming. Scientists have not changed their vernacular on this issue, only the populous, media, and special interests have

Not to mention that the uneducated and special interests have quite loved the phrase 'climate change' because it sounds much less threatening. So here you have scientists doing what scientists do (being precise about what they mean), and morons and liars doing what they do (being wrong and spreading confusion)

Also, anybody who denies the empirical fact of global warming should also deny the luxuries of living in a house, eating food, driving cars, talking on phones, using computers, or drinking water because all of those things are made available to us via the same exact gathering and logical analysis of empirical data that brings us the science of global warming. Not trying to be mean, only make the logic clear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's a pretty interesting idea, and quite a tall order to boot.

It would require a lot of genetic manipulation and experimentation, and we could find ourselves in wunderwaffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe It is a legitimate idea, but it is also another one of those can't wait till it's too late to try to figure it out things

---

It's a tall order but we've come a long way already. If it weren't for Norman Borlaug and the green revolution in the 1960s, hundreds of millions of people in Asia probably would have starved to death in the 1970s.

One problem is that lots of environmental groups oppose GM foods and as a result of their activism, the foundations that used to sponsor Borlaug now refuse to fund efforts to bring the green revolution to Africa. It's a disgrace.

I don't want to completely hate on the environmental movement because they've done a lot of great things, i.e. the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, protecting wilderness areas, etc. But their opposition to GM foods and the way they've gotten most of the world to phase out nuclear power have both been terribly counterproductive and I see the effort to stop global warming by draining trillions of dollars from the economy as being along the same lines. They don't seem to realize there are trade-offs with everything and sometimes when you eliminate one thing its replacement is even worse for the environment. If we used GM foods to improve crop yields then it would take less land to feed the human race and more land could be left wild.

BTW ignore my response about nuclear fusion, I thought you said you wanted $100 billion a year spent solely on fusion research because I fail at reading comprehension. I think we agree the most important thing to be done is to spend more money on research, but it's always an uphill battle to get politicians to direct that money to scientists who will use it well as opposed to special interests like the useless ethanol lobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Here's the disconnect: I'm arguing from the perspective of empirical fact, the opposition is arguing from the perspective of irrational conjecture. The former always wins, and the latter always loses.

---

That probably the funniest thing I have read on the internets - your opinion is based on faith.

You are a poster child for the green religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Here's the disconnect: I'm arguing from the perspective of empirical fact, the opposition is arguing from the perspective of irrational conjecture. The former always wins, and the latter always loses.

---

That probably the funniest thing I have read on the internets - your opinion is based on faith.

You are a poster child for the green religion.

---

Wait, are you telling me that my position is one of faith? Do you even know what faith is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's a pretty interesting idea, and quite a tall order to boot.

It would require a lot of genetic manipulation and experimentation, and we could find ourselves in wunderwaffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe It is a legitimate idea, but it is also another one of those can't wait till it's too late to try to figure it out things

---

It's a tall order but we've come a long way already. If it weren't for Norman Borlaug and the green revolution in the 1960s, hundreds of millions of people in Asia probably would have starved to death in the 1970s.

One problem is that lots of environmental groups oppose GM foods and as a result of their activism, the foundations that used to sponsor Borlaug now refuse to fund efforts to bring the green revolution to Africa. It's a disgrace.

I don't want to completely hate on the environmental movement because they've done a lot of great things, i.e. the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, protecting wilderness areas, etc. But their opposition to GM foods and the way they've gotten most of the world to phase out nuclear power have both been terribly counterproductive and I see the effort to stop global warming by draining trillions of dollars from the economy as being along the same lines. They don't seem to realize there are trade-offs with everything and sometimes when you eliminate one thing its replacement is even worse for the environment. If we used GM foods to improve crop yields then it would take less land to feed the human race and more land could be left wild.

BTW ignore my response about nuclear fusion, I thought you said you wanted $100 billion a year spent solely on fusion research because I fail at reading comprehension. I think we agree the most important thing to be done is to spend more money on research, but it's always an uphill battle to get politicians to direct that money to scientists who will use it well as opposed to special interests like the useless ethanol lobby.

---

Spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Here's the disconnect: I'm arguing from the perspective of empirical fact, the opposition is arguing from the perspective of irrational conjecture. The former always wins, and the latter always loses.

---

That probably the funniest thing I have read on the internets - your opinion is based on faith.

You are a poster child for the green religion.

---

Wait, are you telling me that my position is one of faith? Do you even know what faith is?

---

I took the liberty to google it up (emphasis mine):

Faith:
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Now, Kits, who is basing their opinion on faith, the ones acknowledging the scientific data or the ones contradicting it?

The global warming crowd ignores data which doesn't support their beliefs and shouts down anyone who disagrees.

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and we as humans are arrogant to believe that we can effect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

The global warming crowd ignores data which doesn't support their beliefs and shouts down anyone who disagrees.

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and we as humans are arrogant to believe that we can effect them.

---

So instead of reading my posts and doing any research you have chosen to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and sing lalalalala?

Riddle me this: do you acknowledge electricity, cells, and gravity? If so, then how do you deny global warming? Do you realize that the science that brings you understanding and applications involving electricity, cells, and gravity is the exact same that brings you climate science?

If you suffer from sandy vaginitis and offend easily, stop reading here

Since you're so skilled at understanding issues without knowing anything about them, I suggest that you never allow anybody to do anything to help you. When your car breaks down be sure to not go to a mechanic because you already know how to fix it, when you've been shitting blood for weeks be sure to not go to a doctor because you already know the diagnosis and remedy, and the next time you get on an airliner be sure to march right into the cockpit and shove the pilot out of his seat since you so clearly know how to fly a plane better than a plane flying specialist

Man NASA doesn't even know WTF they're talking about huh? Those idiots couldn't even land on the moon, much less create a concise illustration from compiled meteorological data! Nope, not even that. Somewhere along the line, science wasn't science, physics wasn't physics, and space elephants sneezed on the Amazon rainforest thus creating Val Kilmer's hairdo.

http://geology.com/news/images/globa...nimation-1.jpg

http://geology.com/news/images/globa...-animation.jpg

On the flip side, I don't expect to convince you or any other denier. I have witnessed innumerable accounts of people far more educated that me explain empirical data and rational thought to naysayers, yet fail miserably in achieving the goal of finding them encouraged enough to acknowledge reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

The global warming crowd ignores data which doesn't support their beliefs and shouts down anyone who disagrees.

---

To me it's more than enough information to form an educated opinion to know that based on the available data, over 95% of the scientific community believe the climate is getting warmer, and over 80% think that it's directly our fault. When you take into account that out of the scientists in the study, some were not climatologists but meteorologists, petroleum geologists and astronomers, which while sounding were convincing titles, are not actually experts on climate change. Add to that the people with vested interests, fringe scientists and fruitcakes, and we have pretty damn close to a 100% agreement on the issue by the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and we as humans are arrogant to believe that we can effect them.

---

No, we are arrogant to think none of actions have consequences. The planet's ecosystem has changed more rapidly in the last few decades compared to any other period in time, excluding major catastrophes on a global scale. For example, the background extinction rate, that is, the normal rate species' go extinct on our planet, has historically been between 1-10 species per year. The current estimates of the rate now range between 100-10.000 species per year. At current rate 50% of all living species now will be extinct by 2100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's a pretty interesting idea, and quite a tall order to boot.

It would require a lot of genetic manipulation and experimentation, and we could find ourselves in wunderwaffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe It is a legitimate idea, but it is also another one of those can't wait till it's too late to try to figure it out things

---

It's a tall order but we've come a long way already. If it weren't for Norman Borlaug and the green revolution in the 1960s, hundreds of millions of people in Asia probably would have starved to death in the 1970s.

One problem is that lots of environmental groups oppose GM foods and as a result of their activism, the foundations that used to sponsor Borlaug now refuse to fund efforts to bring the green revolution to Africa. It's a disgrace.

I don't want to completely hate on the environmental movement because they've done a lot of great things, i.e. the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, protecting wilderness areas, etc. But their opposition to GM foods and the way they've gotten most of the world to phase out nuclear power have both been terribly counterproductive and I see the effort to stop global warming by draining trillions of dollars from the economy as being along the same lines. They don't seem to realize there are trade-offs with everything and sometimes when you eliminate one thing its replacement is even worse for the environment. If we used GM foods to improve crop yields then it would take less land to feed the human race and more land could be left wild.

BTW ignore my response about nuclear fusion, I thought you said you wanted $100 billion a year spent solely on fusion research because I fail at reading comprehension. I think we agree the most important thing to be done is to spend more money on research, but it's always an uphill battle to get politicians to direct that money to scientists who will use it well as opposed to special interests like the useless ethanol lobby.

---

There are a couple really worrying things about genetically modified crops. One that bothers me quite a bit, but I guess isnt the most serious, farms become mcdonalds farms. What I mean by this is that if I go get a tomato in naples it will taste just the same as one in chicago. This is do to the big business of genetically modified seed and the fact that big business often leads to monopolies, which it has in this case.

A slightly more serious problem has to do with what exactly the crops are being genetically modified for. High yield is great, but nutritionally empty produce is not. The thing is, produce is sold by weight, not by nutritional content. Therefore the corporations that have a stranglehold on seed production have no interest in making better food, just higher yielding food. From my personal point of view, being a cook, this is a shame; from an objective point of view, this is not all bad, but its certainly far from all good.

Another problem which is closely related to the first one is that there is no profit in variety. CoccoBill mentioned extinction of animals, well through pure profit driven farming thousands of varieties of produce have gone extinct. The problem here is that we are sort of putting all our eggs in one basket. Take the irish potato famine for example. Its proof positive that the less variety in your crop, the more susceptible you are to having your entire crop wiped out.

I don't agree that corporate farming with GM crops makes a country's staple foods more susceptible to parasites. If anything it's the opposite because one of the main goals of GM crop scientists is to develop varieties resistant to blights that are destroying the crops of subsistence farmers. They've saved poor countries from famine many times in this way. Most modern farms use a mixture of several slightly different varieties each with different genes for disease resistance, which makes it harder for parasites to spread or to wipe out a farm's entire yield.

It's definitely a cause for concern that cash crops are often lacking in biodiversity and don't fulfill some nutritional requirements, but we're talking about undeveloped countries where people are starving. I think we should worry first about helping these countries become self-sufficient in food production, and worry about the rest later. Personally I agree that the fruit and vegetables in chain grocery stores are bland, and I buy healthier and better-tasting produce at farmers' markets when I can, but this is a luxury. If it's a choice between McDonald's farms or famine, well, it's not even a choice. Also, if cash crops lack a certain nutrient, we can always provide nutrient supplements, which are dirt cheap compared to the cost of providing a starving country with food. This is another thing the developed world should be doing that it's a shame we aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

The global warming crowd ignores data which doesn't support their beliefs and shouts down anyone who disagrees.

The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and we as humans are arrogant to believe that we can effect them.

---

poker_pup, no offense, but these sentences made me LOL real hard today. Thank you for todays comic relief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

I don't agree that corporate farming with GM crops makes a country's staple foods more susceptible to parasites. If anything it's the opposite because one of the main goals of GM crop scientists is to develop varieties resistant to blights that are destroying the crops of subsistence farmers. They've saved poor countries from famine many times in this way. Most modern farms use a mixture of several slightly different varieties each with different genes for disease resistance, which makes it harder for parasites to spread or to wipe out a farm's entire yield.

It's definitely a cause for concern that cash crops are often lacking in biodiversity and don't fulfill some nutritional requirements, but we're talking about undeveloped countries where people are starving. I think we should worry first about helping these countries become self-sufficient in food production, and worry about the rest later. Personally I agree that the fruit and vegetables in chain grocery stores are bland, and I buy healthier and better-tasting produce at farmers' markets when I can, but this is a luxury. If it's a choice between McDonald's farms or famine, well, it's not even a choice. Also, if cash crops lack a certain nutrient, we can always provide nutrient supplements, which are dirt cheap compared to the cost of providing a starving country with food. This is another thing the developed world should be doing that it's a shame we aren't.

---

I completely agree that letting people starve is not an option. However a lack of food is a symptom of much broader problems. Therefore providing food, while definitely the right thing to do, is rarely going to solve the problem that is causing the famine.

Its like missionaries can bring some good to developing nations, however they also bring christianity... While its good in the short term, allowing gm seed corps to get in on the ground level in vulnerable markets is highly dangerous. Monopolies are bad, and what people fail to realise is that the seed monopoly is one of the strongest (in its respective industry.) But this is probably one of the last places you want a monopoly and we are fanning the fire.

Again, Im not saying that feeding starving people is bad. And I dont really know what the solution is. But Im just trying to point out that its something we should definitely keep a closer eye on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

poker_pup, no offense, but these sentences made me LOL real hard today. Thank you for todays comic relief.

---

You're welcome. I'm glad I can amuse you.

People are starving today due to governments and militias stealing foreign aid

GM isn't fundamentally any different than selective breeding. In fact, it's theoretically far more superior. However, it can be heavily exploited. If we pulled our heads out of our asses and realized that if the public sector doesn't regulate to benefit the collective then the private sector regulates to benefit the individual (which is the current stranglehold on US), and then we wouldn't have much of a problem with potential GM issues since they could be well regulated

Nutrient value has a lot to do with intelligent growing practices and soil. I haven't yet heard about GM doing anything deleterious for nutrition, but I'm not somebody who would actually know the details.

Also, there's an underground storage bunker in like Sweden with like 100k strands of different crops. Scientists know what they're doing, the issue is allowing them to regulate it so special interests don't fuck everything up like normal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Riddle me this: do you acknowledge electricity, cells, and gravity? If so, then how do you deny global warming? Do you realize that the science that brings you understanding and applications involving electricity, cells, and gravity is the exact same that brings you climate science?

---

I aknowledge science. Science is real and repeatable. You don't have to take a survey or get consensus. Everyone agrees because the same experiment produces the same result everytime.

The earth cooled between about 1940 and about 1970. The earth warmed between about 1970 and about 1998. We are currently in a cooling phase. Did mankind only emit CO2 between 1970 and 1998?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

So instead of reading my posts and doing any research you have chosen to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and sing lalalalala?

---

I've read some of your links and looked a few things up, but it still looks like mass hysteria to me.

And don't worry about offending me, you're still almost being civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

The earth cooled between about 1940 and about 1970. The earth warmed between about 1970 and about 1998. We are currently in a cooling phase. Did mankind only emit CO2 between 1970 and 1998?

---

This is exactly my point. It's not like you're the first person to bring this up. Climatologists and geophysicists and all the relevant professions have already looked at this and provided their expert analysis

Climate change is not linear. Just like a poker graph, is a winning player not a winner because he has one bad day? Likewise, you cannot look at isolated incidences and project to the whole. Climate science deals with scales along the entirety of geologic history, the last 600k years, pre-industry, etc. A very fundamental aspect of good science is sample size. Your perspective is ignoring sample size

As more of a direct answer: solar activity, el nino, la nina, lag effects, volcanic activity, and several other factors I cannot think of on the top of my head. Those are all responsible for up or down spikes in global trends, and they're also predicted.

If in 2010 we had reduced sun spots, la nina, and a couple massive volcanic eruptions we would see global temperatures plummet for a period of time, and all the uneducated would scream about how global warming is not real. They would also be ignoring the fact that evaluating global climate on that scale is equivalent to evaluating a 100 meter sprint on the first .01 seconds of the race

You have yet to explain how CO2 is not a heating atmospheric gas, how current CO2 levels are not about ~35% above pre-industrial levels, and provided an explanation for this other than fossil fuel burning.

Seriously, explain your position with data and logic. So far you have provided none while I have provided assloads. You can't just wave your hand and say it's all wrong when the presented evidence shows the opposite.

Again, explain to me why physics and chemistry are wrong. Please. I really want to know about how CO2 is not a GHG and how we are not pumping masses of it into the atmosphere.

OTOH, I think I'm gonna start going the denier route. From now on I'm gonna walk up to dudes and kick them in the balls then when they're like WTF why did you kick me in the balls I'll just be like yeah I didn't kick you in the balls then I'll walk away and fistpump my ability to claim that reality is not reality and feel like I did a good job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poker_pup

I aknowledge science. Science is real and repeatable. You don't have to take a survey or get consensus. Everyone agrees because the same experiment produces the same result everytime.

---

I would also like to point out that you're wielding cognitive dissonance. On the one hand you say that science is about acknowledging experimental data, then on the other hand you don't acknowledge the experimental data.

Also consensus isn't what you think, and surveys are not inherently unscientific. Consensus is general agreement among relevant peers based on said experimental evidence, and surveys are, well, a form of data collection