Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 12:07 AM
 
In America, at our current rate of consumption, we're going to be hitting a shortage wall in another 75-80 years, at our current rate of increased consumption. It'll be worse in other parts of the world, though, because we'll have used all their oil long before that. Essentially, we're making other countries wealthy by buying their oil first; Canada, Venezuela, S. Arabia, etc. but then we're going to get it all back, and a hell of a lot more, later when they're tapped out, because we're going to charge (at least) an order of magnitude more for our crude when that time comes. It's a scheme, and it's been running since before OPEC* and the Saudis and most other major providers are in on it, cashing in their countries' resources for temporary wealth and power. You think there's poverty and war now? This is nothing compared to what it'll be like if we don't change course. It's all seriously ****ed up.


(*Some say it was THE factor in founding OPEC, to guarantee a steady supply to the USA, despite any regional disputes, placing the Saudi royal family in direct control (under US oversight) and making them filthy rich in the process. Don't worry about those fat cats, they'll be moving to the USA before the wells run low in the M.E.. No, this isn't a conspiracy theory, I've talked with some of the people who planned it. There's a reason why we've barely scratched the surface on domestic drilling, and it has nothing to do with "wildlife conservation".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 01:11 AM
 
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
in another 75-80 years
Jeebus... we'll have fusion before that.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Jeebus... we'll have fusion before that.
Thank god for Fusion. The almost nearly ready free energy source.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Inflation adjusted price of gas:
What formula did they use for inflation? I hate to go down this route but while inflation averages ~9% long term, it seems inflation is different for every commodity, and oil is a bit unique in ihat it basically trades as a currency and has some control on currency value & inflation rates itself.

Oil is a finite resource with consistently increasing consumption, yet a gallon of gas costs about as much as it did in the 70s.
This happens with almost every raw material. We keep using more and more, but the price drops or remains stable. Note, a stable price in the face of increasing demand is ultimately a price drop.
As we know in the 70's it was overvalued due to governments artificially constricting the supply. This is a commodity where cartelist government U.S. or otherwise has more influence over price than natural market forces of capitalism. OR You could think of it as having 2 glasses; one half empty and one full. You can drink both glasses of water at the same rate regardless off how much is in them, now imagine you could charge by the rate of extraction not by how much is left, that's how oil works... sometimes...

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
1) Decades ago when this was all likely planned our government was a lot more competent than it is now. Now days partisanship bickering distracts us from getting anything done or even voting for competent politicians; unless it's all just a show being put on by masterminds. This is mostly to blame on what would be called liberal extremism by the past. Back in the day we didnt used to have to fight against half the population and government trying to force socialist & communist ideals on us. This is a huge waste of time, it used to be understood that socialism communism were bad. The republican party has no competition in the realm of intelligence which means they no longer need to be intelligent themselves. The only solution I can see to bring intelligence back to politics is to raise the voting age to 25 or more. Push out the uneducated selfish freeloaders from voting. The youth of the nation brought down old China and now they're trying to bring down the US.

2) Nasa isnt big industry or big money.

3) This likely wasn't planned by government alone but entire industries. And of course it's on the fly adaptable if the political climate changes for some reason. It makes sense, companies are buying up oil land like crazy and sitting on it. In the mean time we're flat out stealing oil from Africa. Everyone around where I live laughs about how they engineer pipelines far off shore drilled sideways under Africa so the people cant see them stealing LNG (gas). When you have the tech to get something practically for free it makes sense why the price has stayed so low.

Fusion
I figured fusion would be brought up. Fusion is a pipe dream, again based on the overconfidence of our progress which I mentioned earlier. It's too complicated to be managed by capitalism, which means government will have to manage it, which means it will never work large scale. If by some miracle it does happen it wont be anywhere close to our lifetime. I forget, is there 2 or 3 research facilities in the entire world? We should probably stick to figuring out solar paint, or how to make batteries that dont die in 18 months first.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 11:53 AM
 
You expect to be alive in 80 years?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
You're correct, but it isn't our gov't who planned this, and even though they are complicit, they aren't in charge. Large corporations are tight-lipped and much better organized.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Thank god for Fusion. The almost nearly ready free energy source.
It's going to be the primary power source for flying cars.

And Half-Life 3.

And the Winds of Winter.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 10:41 PM
 
Honestly, I think 80 years is the kind of timeline which adequately accounts for fusion's slow pace of development.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2017, 05:03 PM
 
This is sure to get the "long knives" out. I'm sure someone will claim it was funded by "Big Oil" or the Koch brothers, or both. Maybe W is behind it.

STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER'
'All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blo...dVoGISvXCbE.99
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blo...orig=education
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...ture-Model.pdf
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2017, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
- man made climate change being a thing that is real. - Man made?. No. As I have posted, in the 70's we being taught the earth was heading into and ice age. The Wikileaks emails show there was collusion(!!!!!!) to fudge numbers to push the warming agenda. Now that the warming trend has slowed, there has been a switch to "climate change". We have a new monkey wrench, I'm sure you'll say they are paid by "Big Oil and/or the Koch Brothers. http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blo...dVoGISvXCbE.99
One of my other goals here is to encourage Chongo to not be a complete idiot, and that he doesn't know better than the vast majority of scientists. Please do not breed.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
- man made climate change being a thing that is real. - Man made?. No. As I have posted, in the 70's we being taught the earth was heading into and ice age. The Wikileaks emails show there was collusion(!!!!!!) to fudge numbers to push the warming agenda. Now that the warming trend has slowed, there has been a switch to "climate change". We have a new monkey wrench, I'm sure you'll say they are paid by "Big Oil and/or the Koch Brothers.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 12:47 PM
 
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 01:18 PM
 
That was republished from a survivalist wackadoo site. I think I trust Scientific American a bit more.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 01:36 PM
 
Would it be too much to ask we don't do this here? There's a perfectly good thread on this topic.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
One of my other goals here is to encourage Chongo to not be a complete idiot, and that he doesn't know better than the vast majority of scientists.

Are these the same scientists that predicted we would be eating the dead due to overpopulation during the late 60's and 70's?

"Earth in the Balance" prediction rate is right up there with "The Population Bomb" and other environmental alarmists predictions. I even have a "Lost in Space" reference for you. A "badly overpopulated Earth" in October 1997 was the reason for the journey to Alpha Centauri. The same premise for "Soylent Green" (overpopulation)

More complete idiocy.

18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-sp...e-this-year-2/
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Please do not breed.
I debated on replying to this because it would give you great pleasure. We haven't been able to have children. On the other hand I take great solace in the fact that complete idiots like myself are having more children than the bessons of the world. One of my favorite Immaculate Heart Radio hosts has 11 children and far more grand and greatgrand children. On family in my parish has 22 children. I'm #5 of 7. The average age of the participants in the annual "March for Life" is in the 20's
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:01 PM
 
I think we can all agree on this. Russia doesn't have much to do with climate change. The way they wreck their cars, they probably have a younger fleet than the US does.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
That was republished from a survivalist wackadoo site. I think I trust Scientific American a bit more.
They were simply the first to put up an article about the report, about 2 hours after its release, which is rather damning for the Climate Change mafia:

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think we can all agree on this. Russia doesn't have much to do with climate change. The way they wreck their cars, they probably have a younger fleet than the US does.
[tinfoilhat] Russia has been controlling the weather for decades with HAARP.[/tinfoilhat]
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:40 PM
 
HAARP is an Uncle Sam joint.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
HAARP is an Uncle Sam joint.
[tinfoilhat]That the Russians hacked into and built their own. [/tinfoilhat]
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 02:57 PM
 
I thought it was Dr. No.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
[tinfoilhat]That the Russians hacked into and built their own. [/tinfoilhat]
But not the DNC?



Note to Andi: this is now in the wrong thread. Pls move.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 04:27 PM
 
Ban him
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would it be too much to ask we don't do this here? There's a perfectly good thread on this topic.
But I want to talk about the carbon footprint of having 22 kids.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
That was republished from a survivalist wackadoo site. I think I trust Scientific American a bit more.
Just so everyone's clear that the two or three posters here screaming the loudest about "fake news" aren't actually concerned with vetting sources, or responsible journalism, or the rigors of scientific peer review. They look for links that confirm what they want to be true and copy paste. "CNN is fake news!" cries man posting links from WorldNewsDaily.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 05:43 PM
 
Chongo: do you disregard what scientists say about other things too, or just climate change? For example, where are you on vaccinations?

I'm sorry to call you an idiot, but when you think you know better than a massive amount of people that have gone through a rigorous process of peer review of the scientific method and have pretty much unanimously concluded the same thing, I'm sorry, but this is the word that best describes you.

I guess I'm sorry but not sorry.

Can you say that your religion has nothing to do with your conclusions?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 05:45 PM
 
You're right, at least WND names their sources, unlike the CNN "unnamed" variety. Why do you trust an unnamed source?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You're right, at least WND names their sources, unlike the CNN "unnamed" variety. Why do you trust an unnamed source?
CNN has never linked a scientific study they're reporting on? CNN links scientific studies less often than WND? You're not being clear here.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 06:16 PM
 
As if you were referring to people citing CNN as fake news WRT only climate science.

two or three posters here screaming the loudest about "fake news" aren't actually concerned with vetting sources
You stick to the main topic at hand and so will I, deal?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You stick to the main topic at hand and so will I, deal?
The main topic of the thread my post got moved to after I posted?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chongo: do you disregard what scientists say about other things too, or just climate change? For example, where are you on vaccinations?

I'm sorry to call you an idiot, but when you think you know better than a massive amount of people that have gone through a rigorous process of peer review of the scientific method and have pretty much unanimously concluded the same thing, I'm sorry, but this is the word that best describes you.

I guess I'm sorry but not sorry.

Can you say that your religion has nothing to do with your conclusions?
Yes, it come from nearly 50 years of hearing "apocalyptic" predictions from environmentalists and none of them coming to fruition.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
The main topic of the thread my post got moved to after I posted?
Yeah, the same topic you weren't referring to when you originally said:

Just so everyone's clear that the two or three posters here screaming the loudest about "fake news" aren't actually concerned with vetting sources
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2017, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ban him
Seconded.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 04:10 AM
 
Climate science deniers aren't denying it for religious reasons unless you count their party/political affiliation as a religious reason, which is increasingly becoming a reasonable conclusion to draw. There seems to be a certain type of person who makes their mind up by gut feeling, then sticks to it regardless of all subsequent evidence uncovered. We have the same problem with Brexiters. As stubborn as they are dumb.

Far as I can tell denying climate change a shameless capitalist, short-term profit above all else thing.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 02:30 PM
 
Why not? Rudeness and a general need for polite discourse. Attack the argument not the person. I'll leave this here for everyone:

Your argument is stupid, because... <- ok
You are stupid... <- less ok
Do not breed... <- not ok
You are a f*****' **** ******! go 'Merica! <- just no
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 02:47 PM
 
Okay then, I'll stick with "your argument is stupid, because" for now on...

Chongo, your argument is stupid because of everything that I said.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 05:45 PM
 
Extended fight hidden under the rug. Maybe we should discuss something safe, like the weather.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Extended fight hidden under the rug. Maybe we should discuss something safe, like the weather.
Sure is unseasonably hot around here.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Yes, it come from nearly 50 years of hearing "apocalyptic" predictions from environmentalists and none of them coming to fruition.
That's about the size of it. Nearly every climate prediction has been wrong, or at the very least been horrendously off the mark. It's a fear-mongering tactic, and some people are big enough suckers to buy into it time and time again, because they need to believe what their heroes are telling them, turning them into a class of zealots that even radical Islamists would envy.

However, that's not to say we shouldn't pursue the same goal; a much cleaner, healthier world. I'll even say that climate change believers aren't taking it far enough. We have the technology to fix 80% of the environmental problems we have (the economy of scale is the main issue), but since those ideas run counter to what investors on the Left have already placed their faith and fortunes into, they'll never receive sufficient traction. (No, producing 100s of billions of bigger, longer-lasting batteries aren't the answer, Elon.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's about the size of it. Nearly every climate prediction has been wrong, or at the very least been horrendously off the mark. It's a fear-mongering tactic, and some people are big enough suckers to buy into it time and time again, because they need to believe what their heroes are telling them, turning them into a class of zealots that even radical Islamists would envy.
So therefore we shouldn't be concerned with climate change? If so, this argument is stupid (am I doing okay so far, Andi?) You don't need predictions to see the alarming upwards trend and changes that have already occurred even if you accept this argument that most climate predictions have been wrong.

However, that's not to say we shouldn't pursue the same goal; a much cleaner, healthier world. I'll even say that climate change believers aren't taking it far enough. We have the technology to fix 80% of the environmental problems we have (the economy of scale is the main issue), but since those ideas run counter to what investors on the Left have already placed their faith and fortunes into, they'll never receive sufficient traction. (No, producing 100s of billions of bigger, longer-lasting batteries aren't the answer, Elon.)
How about climate change also poses a serious threat?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Climate science deniers aren't denying it for religious reasons unless you count their party/political affiliation as a religious reason, which is increasingly becoming a reasonable conclusion to draw. There seems to be a certain type of person who makes their mind up by gut feeling, then sticks to it regardless of all subsequent evidence uncovered. We have the same problem with Brexiters. As stubborn as they are dumb.

Far as I can tell denying climate change a shameless capitalist, short-term profit above all else thing.
The climate changes every day. What is called into question is it solely anthropomorphic climate change.
Dude I live in Arizona. We're called the "Valley of the (surface of the) Sun for a reason. Last week week broke a summer temperature record that stood for over 105 years. If the climate alarmists are correct, not only should it have been broken years ago, we should be breaking temperature records every day.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So therefore we shouldn't be concerned with climate change? If so, this argument is stupid (am I doing okay so far, Andi?) You don't need predictions to see the alarming upwards trend and changes that have already occurred even if you accept this argument that most climate predictions have been wrong.



How about climate change also poses a serious threat?
So kill babies to save the environment?

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/05/15...ate-conference

People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?

“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don't want or can't care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn't have the climate problems that we have. That's the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn't tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it's a disproportionate burden.”
Coming soon to besson's corner store.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The climate changes every day. What is called into question is it solely anthropomorphic climate change.
Dude I live in Arizona. We're called the "Valley of the (surface of the) Sun for a reason. Last week week broke a summer temperature record that stood for over 105 years. If the climate alarmists are correct, not only should it have been broken years ago, we should be breaking temperature records every day.

Chongo, your argument is stupid because of everything that I said.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
So kill babies to save the environment?

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/05/15...ate-conference



Coming soon to besson's corner store.

Chongo, your argument is stupid because of everything that I said.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So therefore we shouldn't be concerned with climate change?
Go back and read the comment again.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chongo, your argument is stupid because of everything that I said.
Well Chongo, it looks like you broke him, his record is skipping. Oh well, it's not like listening to him is worth anything anyway.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Go back and read the comment again.
You made the claim that the goals of countering climate change are worthy for the purposes of a cleaner and healthier world, but nowhere in your post did you explicitly acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change due to carbon emissions.

It isn't clear to me whether or not you recognize the facts behind global climate change. Do you?

You would think that with my obsession over this issue that I'm an environmental zealot in real life. I'm not, I'm just tired and disgusted by this "I'm a guy on the internet, I know better than our world's scientists" thing that you guys (or at least Chongo) have going on.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well Chongo, it looks like you broke him, his record is skipping. Oh well, it's not like listening to him is worth anything anyway.

Take it up with the world's scientists, I don't really have much to say here except "hey guys, um, maybe we should listen to people that actually know what they are talking about?"
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2017, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The climate changes every day. What is called into question is it solely anthropomorphic climate change.
Would you say you and the pope are on the same page with climate change?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,