Snow !

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

so you don't think the massive increase in co2 emission from humans and our farming (cows) will cause any kind of change?

The CO2 increase is only up 50 parts per million so no, I don't, and nor do I call it a 'massive' increase

[salcuta88]

Originally Posted by alex.s

can you cite sources, paul?



lol

And in APA Style too

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

Yes really. Did you read the article you referred to?
There is nothing about the effect of climate change on agricultural technology in there.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by salcuta88

And in APA Style too

"Cite your sources" is part of a tactic for those losing an argument.

1 You make a valid point
2 They say "cite your sources"
3 You cite your source
4 They automatically diss your source regardless of it being NASA or the Max Planck institute
5 They claim a "win" saying your sources are not credible or "biased" and cannot be taken seriously
6 Intelligent debate cannot continue

That has been the nature of debate on the internet for decades.
This is probably the most useful link for anyone engaging in internet debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[Alex]

Originally Posted by alex.s

tl;dr

tl;dr: We have deep-seated political beliefs. More facts on an issue do not change our views. Instead, the more data available supporting the opposite view, the stronger our defense of our original beliefs. We fit whatever pieces of data are available to support our views, rather than adding/shaping/incorporating it into our views.

[allanoue]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/invas...episode/11322/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5679235.html

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Yes really. Did you read the article you referred to?
There is nothing about the effect of climate change on agricultural technology in there.

the first line in the article:
"Agriculture involving domestication of plants and animals was developed around 12,000 years ago"





you said "The climate has not changed in the time we have been using agricultural technology"




i believe what you meant to say was

"The climate has not changed in the time we have been using agricultural technology very much when compared to the changes that killed off millions of animals."

climate changes all the time. to think that the correct answer to climate continuing to change is to simply ignore that its changing... well... i think that's an interesting conclusion.

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by alex.s

if we could control the weather and climate with science and research, why wouldn't you want to?

Because it's called playing God! If we start trying to control the weather we have no idea what the effects might be, and you can't get something for nothing. Make it rain in one part of the world and you'll just cause a drought in another.

It also could just as easily be used against people... At war with another country? Send a couple tornadoes or hurricanes their way, that'll show em.

Besides, there is no direct evidence as of now that links climate change to humans. The truth is that there are many factors at play that we can't control. It seems that just about every prediction of global warming in the last 20 years has been way overestimated and are continually proven incorrect.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-...-is-here/10783

"Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998."

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

Because it's called playing God! If we start trying to control the weather we have no idea what the effects might be, and you can't get something for nothing. Make it rain in one part of the world and you'll just cause a drought in another.

It also could just as easily be used against people... At war with another country? Send a couple tornadoes or hurricanes their way, that'll show em.

Besides, there is no direct evidence as of now that links climate change to humans. The truth is that there are many factors at play that we can't control. It seems that just about every prediction of global warming in the last 20 years has been way overestimated and are continually proven incorrect.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-...-is-here/10783

"Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998."

have you ever been to a doctor? some people say that any kind of health care intervention or surgery is "playing god" lots of things can be used for lots of different reasons. we have atomic energy and ICBMs. does that mean we use them every chance we get? if i remember right, only two nuclear devices have been used in war. and since then their use has been globally banned and countries seeking the technology actively sanctioned.

and what do you mean there is no evidence of climate change linked to humans? green house gases released by human agro and manufacturing account for more than 60% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere since the 50s. that is literally a majority. humans are responsible for the majority of co2 emissions on the planet. co2 is what caused venus to go into runaway greenhouse. now its 500C. granted it took longer than one human life-span to get there. and the changes in the sun helped. but as long as it doesn't affect us right now, we can handily ignore any hints of a problem. right?

the point that i have been trying to make is that we have the ability to **** **** up. obviously. since the 90s, when the EPA clamped down to an insane extent, emissions have dropped by something like 300% in the US. the amount of co2 entering the atmosphere dropped significantly from this. but its still very high compared to the natural co2 emissions. we are still the majority emitter of co2.

but lets apply your logic to another large scale disaster... like asteroids. under your logic, because there have been asteroids that hit the earth before, any future threat of an asteroid is insignificant? and we need not prepare for the possibility of being the target of a large scale impact? this simply doesn't make sense to me.

since the 90s we have been fighting our own affects on the climate. and it has been largely successful in accomplishing the goals they set out to accomplish. emissions have significantly dropped compared to pre-epa rules.

also.... as to the whole assumption that "0.8c" is not significant. you are talking about the entire planet. do you know how much energy you are talking about with only 1c throughout the entire planet? from 20-15k years ago its over 10c hotter globally.

[allanoue]

Who cares if 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change?

[Brother Michigan]

I think the issue is not so much about whether or not the climate is changing, I think there is more a debate on the concept of anthropogenic global warming (whether that is a valid debate to be having or not) and, more reasonably, the actual degree to which humans are affecting the climate.

[Ninjinsky]

This is getting like deja vu all over again
What are you rambling on about Alex? There was not even a possibility of anthropogenic warming until the industrial revolution only 200 years ago. The prehistoric charts have nothing to do with the argument save to prove beyond doubt that climate fluctuates very slowly all on it's own.
Furthermore you display an incorrect interpretation that the prehistoric warmth was caused by CO2 when it is the OPPOSITE
The warming caused the increased CO2 release! By the time you add vulcanism solar variation and flora to the equation far from being neat it is chaotic. as various factors release and absorb. This is more like it:
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Tim...op_712x534.jpg


All the fossil fuel argument is about within the last 200 years (100 if you are a car hater)
Historically atmospheric CO2 used to be 20 times higher than it is today and life thrived. We were not toast
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml

This is getting circular. We could play ping pong all day but we ain't gonna.

[allanoue]

The history of science has shown that there is always some level of disagreement and uncertainty. But history has also shown us that pursuing policies supported by the majority scientific opinion and predominance of scientific evidence is the best way to go.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

There was not even a possibility of anthropogenic warming until the industrial revolution only 200 years ago.

you are wrong.

because, cows.

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Who cares if 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change?

According to whom???

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

According to whom???

here's a nice article on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

[subxero]

do whales fart? you would think so right?

has to be a video of a whale farting somewhere on the webz

betcha it stinks really bad

[alex.s]

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points."

[subxero]

not so sure about the sound effects but YES!!

Link to original page on YouTube.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Who cares if 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change?

Giordano Bruno went to the stake for not being part of the 97%
But he was right.
And there are millions of Americans who would vote to burn Darwin today
Truth is not a democratic process, if it was it wouldn't be immutable.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Giordano Bruno went to the stake for not being part of the 97%
But he was right.
And there are millions of Americans who would vote to burn Darwin today
Truth is not a democratic process, if it was it wouldn't be immutable.

I am not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in china?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Giordano Bruno went to the stake for not being part of the 97%
But he was right.
And there are millions of Americans who would vote to burn Darwin today
Truth is not a democratic process, if it was it wouldn't be immutable.

that 97% was ... what again? remind me? ah... yes. the inquisition. he was burned for being a heretic. is religion based on science? no.

what you are saying is that scientists tend to be right. right?

ahem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.

what does that tell you?

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

you are wrong.

because, cows.

Clutchin' at straws there. in 1800 population was 16th of what it is today there were probably more wildebeest on the Serengeti than domestic cows in the world

[alex.s]

are you a climatologist? am i? the answer to these questions is no. so why are you trying to disagree with literally every major climatologist?

[subxero]

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by subxero

curious what units those are in?

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

that 97% was ... what again? remind me? ah... yes. the inquisition. he was burned for being a heretic. is religion based on science? no.
what you are saying is that scientists tend to be right. right?

No, I am saying that they tend to be wrong because displeasing the authorities (whether the Vatican or the US government) has consequences.
( in terms of funding and career prospects ) The 3 % who put their head above the parapet? How are their careers fairing? And what is the smart thing to say when asked about warming?(in public at any rate)

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

No, I am saying that they tend to be wrong because displeasing the authorities (whether the Vatican or the US government) has consequences.
( in terms of funding and career prospects ) The 3 % who put their head above the parapet? How are their careers fairing? And what is the smart thing to say when asked about warming?(in public at any rate)

hahahaha. okay bro. you win.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

No, I am saying that they tend to be wrong because displeasing the authorities (whether the Vatican or the US government) has consequences.
( in terms of funding and career prospects ) The 3 % who put their head above the parapet? How are their careers fairing? And what is the smart thing to say when asked about warming?(in public at any rate)

They are doing very well working for ExxonMobil, BP, Shell Oil Company,Saudi Aramco ECT...
Edit:
or maybe not
Exxon: "Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

Shell: "…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."

BP: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening and is caused mainly by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2˚C, global emissions should peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050."

Chevron: "At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

They are doing very well working for ExxonMobil, BP, Shell Oil Company,Saudi Aramco ECT...
Edit:
or maybe not
Exxon: "Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

Shell: "…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."

BP: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening and is caused mainly by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2˚C, global emissions should peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050."

Chevron: "At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

Look, You run a petroleum company.
Part A Do you want to
1 Sell gas at rock bottom price?
or
2 Sell the smallest amount you can for the highest price?

Part B
Which of the two does the warming claim give you the perfect excuse for doing?

It's an unholy alliance worthy of JR Ewing

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Look, You run a petroleum company.
Part A Do you want to
1 Sell gas at rock bottom price?
or
2 Sell the smallest amount you can for the highest price?

Part B
Which of the two does the warming claim give you the perfect excuse for doing?

It's an unholy alliance worthy of JR Ewing

perfect excuse for switching to a tesla full electric.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by alex.s

perfect excuse for switching to a tesla full electric.

My next bike

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

perfect excuse for switching to a tesla full electric.

I am a great fan of the Tesla Roadster. Good that we can agree on something

[alex.s]

i'm a big fan of anything involving a lotus.

[ninjamunky85]

Don't you know how bad those batteries are for the environment?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

Don't you know how bad those batteries are for the environment?

lithium slurry is by far much worse for a human than petroleums. in fact it will probably melt you if you touched it.

the difference is, we can contain the the negative emissions from lithium ion battery production and recycling. and when they are in use they are 0 emission. the only emission comes from the powerplant, if they are dirty power plants. though there are many different "clean" power generation methods. also you cannot just "get rid of" a lithium ion battery. there are laws (thanks to the epa) that make it so you are forced to dispose of it in a nondestructive way (electronic and hazardous waste recycling plants)

[choneofakind]

50 ppm is HUGE when we're talking about air here.

Let's look at some chemicals I'm familiar with.
H2S: 15 ppm will knock you out.
Benzene: 2 ppm will kill you.

50 ppm is a significant change to the composition of the air.

[alex.s]

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by alex.s

lithium slurry is by far much worse for a human than petroleums. in fact it will probably melt you if you touched it.

the difference is, we can contain the the negative emissions from lithium ion battery production and recycling. and when they are in use they are 0 emission. the only emission comes from the powerplant, if they are dirty power plants. though there are many different "clean" power generation methods. also you cannot just "get rid of" a lithium ion battery. there are laws (thanks to the epa) that make it so you are forced to dispose of it in a nondestructive way (electronic and hazardous waste recycling plants)

Ask yourself where is the Lithium coming from though? In the end we're just trading one evil for another. Also just because the EPA has laws for disposal that doesn't mean that other countries, like China for example, would be disposing of them properly.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

Ask yourself where is the Lithium coming from though? In the end we're just trading one evil for another. Also just because the EPA has laws for disposal that doesn't mean that other countries, like China for example, would be disposing of them properly.

are you asking questions or trying to make a point? how about you educate us on the mining processes for lithium