Climate Change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2010, 12:01 AM
RE: Climate Change
Saving the planet means saving the eco-systems that support us. We are not concerned about a world that we won't be a part of. We are concerned about surviving as a race and we cannot survive at a race if we destroy that which supports us.

This has always been my understanding of the term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 09:52 PM
 
RE: Climate Change
(17-09-2010 12:27 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  I've seen that bit and I think it is really funny...

However, I will admit I am selfish and arrogant. I care about the survival of the human gene pool. That is my responsibility as a Darwinian organism. So I will "meddle" with nature if it means the continuous survival of the human race.

We also need to rephrase the debate from "Saving the Planet" which truly is as Carlin puts it, and rephrase it to "Save the Human Race." It might carry more weight then.

Also, a lot of Carlin said was comedic exaggeration.

I think you may have misunderstood Carlin. He seems to be saying the same thing you are, but from an extremely ironic position.
Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 03:27 AM
 
RE: Climate Change
I am sure of climate change (I've seen scientific arguments for and against)

are humans the cause? yes and no.
Agriculture is the biggest producer of green house gasses. So, in a way, yes we are to blame cause the amount of meat Agriculture produces. Only a small percent is due to things like cars and such.
Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 04:52 AM
 
RE: Climate Change
(19-09-2010 09:52 PM)puncheex Wrote:  
(17-09-2010 12:27 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  I've seen that bit and I think it is really funny...

However, I will admit I am selfish and arrogant. I care about the survival of the human gene pool. That is my responsibility as a Darwinian organism. So I will "meddle" with nature if it means the continuous survival of the human race.

We also need to rephrase the debate from "Saving the Planet" which truly is as Carlin puts it, and rephrase it to "Save the Human Race." It might carry more weight then.

Also, a lot of Carlin said was comedic exaggeration.

I think you may have misunderstood Carlin. He seems to be saying the same thing you are, but from an extremely ironic position.

I'm not so sure. He said that he was rooting for the demise of the human race so many times I don't know if it is comedic exaggeration or not.
Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2010, 10:40 AM
 
RE: Climate Change
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...long-life/

I want to trust scientists but I'm getting conflicting reports here. I am not a climatologist. Surely the scientific method can deduce what is and what is not real about climate change. Does this article have any validity? I know he cites the climategate reports which were exposed to be a sham anyways (the data is sound). He is also a physicist, and so may not know what he is talking about.
Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2010, 02:30 AM
RE: Climate Change
The majority of top scientists accept climate change. If they are wrong, no harm done to people and eco-systems. If they are right and we don't act, or act too late, There will be very serious consiquences. My money is on the majority who have accepted climate change as a matter of collective evidence and not the few who have to play devil's advocate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2010, 12:27 PM
 
RE: Climate Change
And anyways, oil is going to run out and there are finite resources on our planet so whether or not you believe in climate change, a move to a "greener" (I despise that term) economy is just smart.
Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2010, 11:13 PM
RE: Climate Change
(12-10-2010 12:27 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  And anyways, oil is going to run out and there are finite resources on our planet so whether or not you believe in climate change, a move to a "greener" (I despise that term) economy is just smart.

Instead of greener you could say "less f#&ing polluting."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 01:44 AM
 
RE: Climate Change
When some climate change skeptic with some academic credentials (usually not doing research in climate, however, like this guy) makes a public statement, the media just love to ballyhoo this "news", continuing the illusion of some conflict in global climate change science. There is very little disagreement within the global climate change community about the validity of the iPCC reports. Those reports represent the virtually unanimous consensus of hundreds of researchers who are actively engaged in the science of climate. I know enough about this pseudo-controversy to realize this guy is just another bonehead global climate change skeptic who doesn't know what he's talking about. The so-called climategate "revelations" have been shown to be of no substances whatsoever. A doctorate and a long career in physics don't qualify him to reject all of the work done by the IPCC. To the idiots in the media, the consensus of hundreds of scientists counts the same as the ravings of some old fart.
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 08:26 AM
RE: Climate Change
A Norwegian scientist who has spent the last two decades researching the cycles of the sun published a paper a few years ago where he argued that rapid climate change could be related to changes in activity on the sun. No one talks to him anymore..
I can´t even find his paper so I could quote a source. Huh
It´s things like this that fuel the skeptic in me.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: