The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-07-2012, 06:50 PM   #316
War Child
 
Dfit00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 893
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Sending a death threat to a scientist is like not giving candy to a crying child.

Neverending economic growth destroys the environment and causes a lower quality of life in the long run. This is not only about global warming, it's about everything.
__________________

__________________
Dfit00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 10:34 PM   #317
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfit00 View Post
Sending a death threat to a scientist is like not giving candy to a crying child.

Neverending economic growth destroys the environment and causes a lower quality of life in the long run. This is not only about global warming, it's about everything.
Actually our quality of life (thanks to economic growth and new technology) is better than ever.

The reality is that green energy can only supply a small fraction of energy for decades so to only use that technology would be a huge economic catastrophe. Unless this moral question (should we really impoverish people?) is answered it will be the same hypocrisy. All talk but no doing. Cap and trade hasn't reduced CO2 in Europe so the only answer is to wait until green energy is good enough. Maybe some research and development funding will be necessary. Once the technology is ready for primetime there won't be a need for government to force it on the world population.

With all the debt crises in the world this subject will be the back burner. I don't see any major appetite for people to do this willfully and to be forced by politicians will simply lose votes for them. I think de-industrializing to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere would be so onerous that Mao's Great Leap Forward would look like a holiday instead. Hey at least North Korea has succeeded in turning the lights off. China has already said no to cap and trade and if politicians have no expectation that it will work they will only support it simply because their excuse will be that it increases the wealth and the power of government regulators.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 10:38 PM   #318
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 06:57 AM
I think this sort of debate begs to have mentioned the ideas of this man:

Derrick Jensen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Jensen believes that civilized society, capped off by industrial civilization, is inherently unsustainable and will eventually crash. He advocates the purposeful destruction of it now, but says that the crash is eventually inevitable... it will just be more painful if put off until later. Interesting stuff.

(Jensen is not the first person to have such ideas, but I believe that his book Endgame is probably the most popularly represented depiction of the ideas.)
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 10:54 PM   #319
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
People have been predicting end of the world scenarios for decades. When will people wake up? Extreme environmentalists look at "too many people" to include YOU and not them. You're just an ant to them. The general public don't care about book publishers and movie directors like James Cameron making more money than the average person talking about prosperity being bad for the environment. They need to lead us into noble poverty for us to follow.

Answer this question for me leftists: If leftists don't like austerity measures and the public finds austerity measures something to vote against what makes you think the public will accept far more stringent environmental austerity measures that force the public to abandon fossil fuels without a cheap replacement? See? This is why the argument is lost. In Quebec there are protests for tuition hikes despite having the lowest tuition in the country. What kind of protest would happen if those same individuals had to face energy bills without fossil fuels to make life so expensive to prevent jobs and procreation? Leftists can't handle austerity but they can handle the economic consequences of reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Not likely.

The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists - YouTube
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 12:13 AM   #320
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Answer this question for me leftists: If leftists don't like austerity measures and the public finds austerity measures something to vote against what makes you think the public will accept far more stringent environmental austerity measures that force the public to abandon fossil fuels without a cheap replacement? See? This is why the argument is lost. In Quebec there are protests for tuition hikes despite having the lowest tuition in the country. What kind of protest would happen if those same individuals had to face energy bills without fossil fuels to make life so expensive to prevent jobs and procreation? Leftists can't handle austerity but they can handle the economic consequences of reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Not likely.
I completely agree with you... climate change believers are generally (though not universally) not much better than climate change skeptics at doing things to actually try to address climate change, and the economic consequences for dealing with climate change could potentially be monstrous. Though that is not a reasonable argument against climate change. A lot of people (myself included) who intellectually buy into climate change deny it in a different sense... we shove it off and ignore it and pretend it does not exist. And for that, we are at least somewhat reprehensible.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:20 AM   #321
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Most likely we will have to wait until there is a cheap alternative. Also some new science is casting doubt that CO2 is the main climate driver.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/0...limate-change/

http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/insti...limatology.pdf

To me it seems obvious that we should spend research resources on natural causes to climate change before we put all our eggs in one basket.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:42 AM   #322
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:57 AM
John Coleman, not exactly THE founder of the Weather Channel, is a weather anchor he is NOT a scientist.

Why do the deniers keep clinging on to the words of non-scientists? Your point would be so much more respected if you all knew how to approach the subject.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 09:04 AM   #323
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS
John Coleman, not exactly THE founder of the Weather Channel, is a weather anchor he is NOT a scientist.

Why do the deniers keep clinging on to the words of non-scientists? Your point would be so much more respected if you all knew how to approach the subject.
He was pointing out in layman's language what Svensmark discovered who is a scientist. Not everyone on the warmest side is a scientist either.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 09:26 AM   #324
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
He was pointing out in layman's language what Svensmark discovered who is a scientist. Not everyone on the warmest side is a scientist either.
Well, he was interpreting Swensmark's discoveries, and I was commenting more about the denier website and how they setup Coleman as a viable source on the matter. Svensmark's discoveries have been put to major doubt by at least 3 papers in the last decade.

And yes, not everyone who talks about climate change is a scientist or better yet an expert on climate, but guess what? I don't listen to them or see them as viable sources either.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 04:31 PM   #325
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well, he was interpreting Swensmark's discoveries, and I was commenting more about the denier website and how they setup Coleman as a viable source on the matter. Svensmark's discoveries have been put to major doubt by at least 3 papers in the last decade.
Yet it correlates better than CO2. I also listen to non-scientists because of the political and economic ramifications. I also listen to scientists that used to be on the bandwagon and have changed their tune:

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist

Quote:
factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?

Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 04:34 PM   #326
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 06:57 AM
A couple of things worth pointing out:

Quote:
Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.
Well, it has doubled, and 1°C is not insignificant.

Quote:
Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:07 PM   #327
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I also listen to non-scientists because of the political and economic ramifications.
And this IS the problem. So, basically what you are saying is that even if it was fact and you believed this fact then you would listen to those speaking out against the "political and economic" ramifications and not support action to remedy the situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I also listen to scientists that used to be on the bandwagon and have changed their tune:

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist
This guy is a quack. Just look at the article you posted:

Quote:
To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.
So I'm suppose to listen to a 60 something year old scientist that just developed scientific ethics 7 years ago? No thanks.

Let's take a look at some of his other hard facts about sea level change:

Klaus-Eckart Puls: Sea Level Rise Is Slowing Down – “There’s Going To Be No Acceleration”

Quote:
Not everyone is convinced sea levels will rise quickly. Qatar just built a stadium on a man-made island.
^Can't make this shit up.

Quote:
It’s not the climate that’s a catastrophe – it’s the media.
Ah, taken straight from your handbook.

His interpretations of OTHER RESEARCHERS data has been regarded as incomplete and inconclusive by many scientists.

Plus I'm not a big fan of taking Meteorologists as experts in this field.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:09 PM   #328
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.
That is fucking awesome...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:59 PM   #329
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I agree. They shouldn't stoop to the level of the warmists.
The fact that the anti-climate change folks have given a cutesy name (warmists) is pretty sad.

That makes them just as bad as the irritating, agitant athiest crowd who use "fundies" to refer to religious people.

Very much kiddy shit, as is calling the ACA Obamacare instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yet it correlates better than CO2. I also listen to non-scientists because of the political and economic ramifications. I also listen to scientists that used to be on the bandwagon and have changed their tune:
But apparently, you have to resort to what every other person against even the possibility of climate change being affected by man does: cherry picking a choice few scientists who support your viewpoint from an overwhelming majority who lean the other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is really ridiculous. You fall into the same trap INDY does....going after a relatively small, nuts group of environmental activists who are basically crazy (the environmental version of PETA).

Rational people (including liberals) know PETA, and radical environmentalists, are batshit nuts.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 10:53 AM   #330
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS

That is fucking awesome...
You do realize that ice floating in water when it melts that sea level won't rise? If Greenland and Antarctica melts it will add to sea level rise because it moves from land to sea.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com