That seems a little disingenuous when you rarely answer direct questions.
BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
That seems a little disingenuous when you rarely answer direct questions.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
links are facts, y'all.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Dear Christ.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I will bite.
What makes you think that the antithesis to your position on climate change is that "we will all die from global warming"?
I'm a lurker on this forum; I rarely post. But I have to say that a lot of the discourse in this thread is simply disingenuous and sometimes downright facetious. As with all complicated issues, nuance is key. There are ignorants on both sides of this issue.
We will not "all die from climate change", nor will the planet be destroyed. The planet will be fine, and so will most of us. Conversely, it is simply willful ignorance to deny basic, well documented scientific facts - the earth is indeed warming and this affects climate; CO2 and other gases do cause a greenhouse effect.
The scientific debate is not WHETHER there is climate change or whether we contribute to it with our activities; this is well received. The question is around the EXTENT of the impact that it will have. What will happen if the Earth warms by 2C? 3C? 4C? How will the climate be affected, which regions will be affected first and how, what geopolitical and medical issues is all this going to cause, how much is this going to cost? This is uncertain. You will find people arguing on the optimistic and pessimistic end of things on this one. Some will say, let's wait and see, we can adapt. Others will argue that adaptation will be too expensive and that it is much cheaper to reduce our emissions now, in addition to all the other positive effects of working toward sustainable human and industrial activity. We will probably end up doing both.
I have to deal with this issue on a daily basis. All I'm saying is this: ignore the demagogues on both sides, look at the facts, and engage in constructive discourse. This is a fascinating issue and it needs good minds.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
These haven't been answered yet:
And that's just the last two pages.
AliEnvy
Refugee
kramwest1
has a
Snowtorious B.I.G. proves that global warming exists. Dennis Quaid told us so.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
There was a physicist on the Today Show a couple of weeks ago who talked about this exact thing-the warm moist air in the Gulf Of Mexico and how that combines with the patterns and the cold up north, etc. etc. Now how that warmth is created, well I suppose that's up for debate. But as long as I've lived I have never experienced a winter like this one. It's not normal because "well it snows there in the winter". This is extreme and all of my instincts tell me why it's happening. We had a snowstorm yesterday, snow and tons of sleet today (the most brutal to try to get around in and to shovel) and more snow coming Saturday. There is literally nowhere to put it, it looks like the North Pole on steroids.
It's like a natural disaster that just keeps happening two or three or more times a week. Roofs are collapsing, and God only knows what's yet to come. That Punksawhatever Phil better be right, or I will be number 1 on PETA's most wanted list.
As bad as it might look on a news story-you really have no idea how bad it actually is. It takes a real toll on your psyche too.
Oh and there's a huge cyclone in Australia
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly. And of course, I don't dispute that some of these unusual weather phenomenons are just results of the earth going through some natural shifts-that does happen every so often and that part of it all there's really nothing we can do about.
But to deny the fact that this is happening at all, and for people to never, EVER think to bring up the simple fact about the warm air and all that on TV, just floors me. My god, that's something you learn in freakin' elementary school. I mean, I'm no science genius, and maybe the fact that I'm a bit of a nerd about weather factors into this as well, but it really amazes me that your average person seems so ignorant of those facts.
LOL. Yeah, I understand
. I love winter, myself, but I gotta say, if I were living out in the northeastern U.S. right now, having to wade my way through the endless stream of snow, I'd be getting a bit fed up as well. It's been pretty hectic here in the last couple months and we haven't experienced anywhere near the nasty winter some have. It's been a pretty tough one, yes, but others have us beat. Ugh, yes, heard about that, too. 'Cause, you know, it's not like they haven't suffered enough already with the wildfires and the flooding.
Angela
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
at what point does this become trolling exactly?
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
The second comment from the link you posted:
"Basically, a troll is someone who says something negative just to stir the pot and get attention."
Can we get back to discussing the topic?
Make your point, post a link.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Diemen asked the following questions on the previous page (I'm probably wasting my time here):
I posted this lecture, if you want an interesting link to comment on:
Richard B. Alley lecture
But you're not actually discussing anything. You just post a link and disappear from the conversation. That's not a discussion, that's a drive-by posting.
You said you would try to answer our questions of you (notice our questions were for you, not some random online website). I replied with several questions that had already been standing in this thread. Others have questions for you as well. Do you plan on answering them at any point?
Cactus Annie
Refugee
That documentary on the radical left broadcaster, the BBC on Wednesday night was completely one sided.
He didn't say how many camera crews the BBC sent to Chile to film the mine rescue and the fact that out of the broadcasters the BBC probably has the biggest carbon footprint of all.
He didn't say that these computer models that the green lobby use not only (according to them) pollute the atmosphere with carbon and how a computer program does what humans input into it, so these models mean nothing.
He didn't say anything about the East Anglican University's leaked emails requesting researchers to exaggerate the affects of man on the environment.
The presenter focused on only one controversial journalist, however he didn't say that there are just as many scientists who dispute man-made global warming.
He said that one of the global warming sceptic groups were founded by Enron. But he didn't say that there are environmental groups that also funded by certain companies that are pushing their own agenda.
He said that he is willing to give up a little bit of freedom in order to save the planet. But he didn't say that these modern day red communists want us all to most of our electrical output to the point of reversing back to the stone age. They want to raise fuel costs even more than they have risen all ready. Last year almost 500 elderly people died frozen to death in their own home because of the cost of puting on a heater in Britain alone. If the green brigade have their pown way even more will die each year. They are putting an unproven theory above people's lives. You look it that way some of these people are quite evil!
In the end he said that the pro global warming scientists argued that carbon is not the main problem with global warming. He didn't say that this is the whole crutch of their argument, that carbon is the main cause of global warming according to their theory.
And I'd like to know what else he didn't say!
He didn't say how many camera crews the BBC sent to Chile to film the mine rescue and the fact that out of the broadcasters the BBC probably has the biggest carbon footprint of all.
He didn't say that these computer models that the green lobby use not only (according to them) pollute the atmosphere with carbon and how a computer program does what humans input into it, so these models mean nothing.
He didn't say anything about the East Anglican University's leaked emails requesting researchers to exaggerate the affects of man on the environment.
The presenter focused on only one controversial journalist, however he didn't say that there are just as many scientists who dispute man-made global warming.
He said that one of the global warming sceptic groups were founded by Enron. But he didn't say that there are environmental groups that also funded by certain companies that are pushing their own agenda.
He said that he is willing to give up a little bit of freedom in order to save the planet. But he didn't say that these modern day red communists want us all to most of our electrical output to the point of reversing back to the stone age. They want to raise fuel costs even more than they have risen all ready. Last year almost 500 elderly people died frozen to death in their own home because of the cost of puting on a heater in Britain alone. If the green brigade have their pown way even more will die each year. They are putting an unproven theory above people's lives. You look it that way some of these people are quite evil!
In the end he said that the pro global warming scientists argued that carbon is not the main problem with global warming. He didn't say that this is the whole crutch of their argument, that carbon is the main cause of global warming according to their theory.
And I'd like to know what else he didn't say!
Rather than go point by point on your response, I'd like to ask you this: Why do you think the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is real?
It probably has a large carbon footprint, indeed. That doesn't change the science or the problem, it simply means that we are far from the solution.
Almost every activity, in some way or another, pollutes.
Models are limited by our understanding of science, that is true. But models help us understand phenomena that require large-scale computations - they are indeed quite useful. People must be careful when interpreting the results, but they provide valuable information. Computer models are used on a daily basis, from electricity dispatch models to weather forecasts. You unknowingly use them on a daily basis.
An independent inquiry into these emails proved that there was no wrong doing or falsification in the work. This scandal was a carefully timed attempt (prior to Copenhagen) to cast doubts on the integrity of scientists by taking a few emails out of context. Nothing wrong was going on.
That is simply not true.
Fair enough. There are extremists on both sides of this issue, and there are people who would benefit from action or inaction on this issue. This is inevitable, and is present in every issue. But here again, you have to be careful to ignore demagogues and people who have a particularly large stake in the economic ramifications of an issue.
This is hyperbolic. The planet will be just fine.
You have to stop reading into all the propaganda. There is propaganda from extreme environmentalists (unrealistic expectations about energy use and demand), just like there is propaganda from extreme deniers (climate change is a socialist hoax, clean technologies are evil). Try to find the middle ground, and discuss pragmatic solutions to a problem that is very real.
kramwest1
has a
Whether you want to believe in global climate change or not, how about the simple and factual thought that if we use less coal, there will be less smog in the air and mercury in the water (and in the fish that we then can't eat), and that fewer children will develop asthma and die from it?
Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with wanting children to have healthy lungs. Can we agree on that? Less coal burning is better for everyone's immediate health.
Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with wanting children to have healthy lungs. Can we agree on that? Less coal burning is better for everyone's immediate health.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
There is a wide array of technologies that can lead to reductions in GHG emissions, including retirement of coal-fired units. Some solutions are cheaper than others. I find this (old) figure from McKinsey & Company interesting as a starting point for discussion:
Of particular interest: some mitigation strategies - often rooted in efficiency improvement and conservation - actually yield negative costs, i.e. savings. Mitigation will gain traction as more and more businesses understand that, in many cases, there is a great opportunity to reduce their environmental footprint while increasing their profitability.
Of particular interest: some mitigation strategies - often rooted in efficiency improvement and conservation - actually yield negative costs, i.e. savings. Mitigation will gain traction as more and more businesses understand that, in many cases, there is a great opportunity to reduce their environmental footprint while increasing their profitability.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Status
Similar threads
