Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2012, 01:04 PM
RE: WTF?
(19-02-2012 07:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 10:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Let's do the fucking science.

I thought it had been done and the link proven beyond reasonable doubt. In any case I'm for any scheme which ends up with us doing a bit for the environment and hopefully preserving some sort of heritage for our kids. Also cutting down on pollution ... I don't see how that can be construed as a bad thing. If someone figures a way to make money *and* help the rest of us do the right thing at the same time, good on them.

MD, I was really addressing this to the deniers - they usually say the science is flawed or there's a liberal scientist conspiracy or the science shows there's no problem.

My real point is that we should keep to the science. Business and conservatives want to deny there is any problem, tree huggers say the sky is falling. I suspect the truth is closer to the tree hugger end of the spectrum, but we don't know how much and when we have to do exactly what. We may, in fact, be past a tipping point, but we don't yet know - there is still more science to do.

P.S. The Himalayan glaciers HAVE shrunk. The reports are that they haven't shrunk as fast as was thought.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-02-2012, 03:26 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2012 03:30 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(18-02-2012 05:05 AM)bemore Wrote:  MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!

Its this "need" for such things that have ultimatly led to the mashing up of the planet.

So what there soloution to this.......what can solve this massive problem of huge global corporations raping the earth and its people????

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!! (in the form of carbon tax)

Rolleyes

That makes no sense at all....

Even if you could argue that the carbon tax didnt reduce omissions, which is utterly false, then you are still just trading a commodity thats natural impact would be next to nothing.

l2logic

(18-02-2012 10:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  I suggest you all do a little more research. There is evidence of increased melting of Himalayan glaciers, Greenland glaciers, North American glaciers. There's also the collapse of the Ross ice shelf.

The earth has cyclic climate - it goes in and out of ice ages.

But the facts are that the rate of change of average global temperatures is greater than any previous time, and humans are pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Causal? Correlated? Coincidence? I don't know and neither do you.

Climb down off your sky-is-falling and climate-change-denier bandwagons. If human activity is causing rapid climate change, we need to do something. If not, we can relax.

Let's do the fucking science.


Doing nothing sounds like a terrible plan no matter how you look at it. Yet, thats the current game plan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 05:14 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
I like the way you can trade in the futures of carbon credits…
The devious cynic in me giggles and his eyes glint with the absurdity of it.

Carbon credits, like pre-paying a fine for littering.
Factory X need to make product to make money and has waste as a by-product.
So the carbon tax is worked out per unit.
And the cost goes on product.
So we who use the product are paying the carbon tax.
That’s cool, user pays.

But…

How will giving money to your government change the global temperature?
If the factories just add to the cost of the product, therefore bypassing any actual costs then what is the compulsion for the factory to spend on becoming “greener”?

Is the actual temperature changing?
We are told it is rising by some, told it’s not by others, and some point to a reduction in global readings.
And even if it is, are we responsible?
And if we are, is it 100% us or .001% us?

Is climate change (not global warming anymore, because it probably isn’t) the new religion?
We are given filtered and refined information by a hysterical media who are getting refined information from some PR department who have gotten refined information from someone who might not wish to rock the boat and upset the weekly pay cheque.
And the end result: Fox and friends screaming “Who will think of the children?”
To go against the tide you will be labelled a heretic, and like all good religions, there is no grey area, you are with us or against us.

Yes, let’s do the fucking science!
Let’s do it without any agendas (Gore, fuck off) like all good science should be done.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2012, 03:39 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(25-02-2012 05:14 PM)Karl Wrote:  How will giving money to your government change the global temperature?

I read an article on this ages ago, I believe the way it's supposed to work is as follows:

1. We know we produce CO2 as a by product of most industrial processes and e.g. cars.
2. The CO2 is bad so we set an emissions cap - max amount that we can accept emitting. The cap is *less* than the total we would emit if unrestricted.
3. Now we sell companies the right to emit a quantity of CO2. Because there's a finite amount to go round, companies are willing to pay for the right (in theory, bear with me). This means that if you *auction* the CO2 credits, companies who have a vested interest in emitting more will theoretically pay more for the right to emit - so eventually a few companies lose out 'cos they can't afford to stay in the auction and the other companies get to emit the amount of CO2 they have bought credits for.

This then has the effect:
1. Yay! The government gets lots of money to spend Smile Preferably on environmental stuff.
2. Because the cap was less than the unregulated emissions, emissions go down.

BUT. The whole thing is predicated on enforcing that companies can't emit if they haven't bought credits, measuring their output, fining them if they go over the amount that they have bought. This seems difficult...

This is why I think it's more or less unworkable. Also there's not a lot of political will to cap emissions anyway I think - 'cos the fear is that'll make the economy of whichever country is in question less competitive than their rivals and everyone knows that would be baaaaaad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: WTF?
(19-02-2012 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  P.S. The Himalayan glaciers HAVE shrunk. The reports are that they haven't shrunk as fast as was thought.

No doubt. But I haven't seen anything yet that's convinced me that humans are causing it. Obviously we pump CO2 into the atmosphere. But is it really making the difference that they suggest it is. If we had passed the peak of our warming period and were puming the same amount of CO2 (among other things) would we still cool down like normal? Would temps stay the same? Would they continue to rise? I don't know and neither does any cimate change scientist. When they can tell me what difference in global/regional temps will be with an extra 100 tons of CO2 then I'll give it more consideration. I don't think we are good enough at prediciting climate and weather (especially with solar and other factors affecting it) to just assume. To me it sounds like "Temps are going up, CO2 is in the air, therefore CO2 is causing the temp to go up". I sense the same circular reasoning that theists use in their arguments. It's never been a right/left issue for me. Let's also not ignore the fact that a very large number of climate change scientists have a predisposition to environmental protection. They seek science that helps their argument and likely deny any that disproves or contradicts it. And when they can't ignore/deny the counter argument they come up with things like Climate Change instead of Global Warming to better suit their study.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2012, 02:57 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2012 03:01 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: WTF?
(27-02-2012 10:00 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  P.S. The Himalayan glaciers HAVE shrunk. The reports are that they haven't shrunk as fast as was thought.

No doubt. But I haven't seen anything yet that's convinced me that humans are causing it. Obviously we pump CO2 into the atmosphere. But is it really making the difference that they suggest it is. If we had passed the peak of our warming period and were puming the same amount of CO2 (among other things) would we still cool down like normal? Would temps stay the same? Would they continue to rise? I don't know and neither does any cimate change scientist. When they can tell me what difference in global/regional temps will be with an extra 100 tons of CO2 then I'll give it more consideration. I don't think we are good enough at prediciting climate and weather (especially with solar and other factors affecting it) to just assume. To me it sounds like "Temps are going up, CO2 is in the air, therefore CO2 is causing the temp to go up". I sense the same circular reasoning that theists use in their arguments. It's never been a right/left issue for me. Let's also not ignore the fact that a very large number of climate change scientists have a predisposition to environmental protection. They seek science that helps their argument and likely deny any that disproves or contradicts it. And when they can't ignore/deny the counter argument they come up with things like Climate Change instead of Global Warming to better suit their study.

Yah and you don't know how your toaster works either...So you know what? You don't tell the Engineers making a toaster how to do their job. Likewise, you don't know shit about climatology, so you and the other 99% of the people completely ignorant on the subject should just, sit down, shut up, and listen to what the scientists says. Your opinion, my opinion, and the other 99% of peoples opinion don't mean diddly shit.

The problem here is people like you, who knows almost nothing on the subject think you should get a vote. as if science has to accommodate the idiots who know nothing about it. Science is not a democracy! Just because you were born does not give you a right to voice your opinion on the matter. If people would learn this, we would all be far better off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mysticjbyrd's post
28-02-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: WTF?
(28-02-2012 02:57 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  The problem here is people like you, who knows almost nothing on the subject think you should get a vote. as if science has to accommodate the idiots who know nothing about it. Science is not a democracy! Just because you were born does not give you a right to voice your opinion on the matter. If people would learn this, we would all be far better off.

Sorry but I dont share your "faith" in believing everything that the goverment spouts.....because it is quite evident that the only thing to come out of all this is more taxation.

Im sorry but with all of the amazing technological advances that this earth has enjoyed over the last 100 years you mean to tell me that NO ONE EVER....not yet come up with alternatives to using oil???

So they can fiddle with DNA.....they can mutate viruses.....they have the LHC in CERN smashing particles together trying to discover the secrets of the universe..........yet we still have such a reliance on oil???

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: WTF?
(28-02-2012 02:57 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(27-02-2012 10:00 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  P.S. The Himalayan glaciers HAVE shrunk. The reports are that they haven't shrunk as fast as was thought.

No doubt. But I haven't seen anything yet that's convinced me that humans are causing it. Obviously we pump CO2 into the atmosphere. But is it really making the difference that they suggest it is. If we had passed the peak of our warming period and were puming the same amount of CO2 (among other things) would we still cool down like normal? Would temps stay the same? Would they continue to rise? I don't know and neither does any cimate change scientist. When they can tell me what difference in global/regional temps will be with an extra 100 tons of CO2 then I'll give it more consideration. I don't think we are good enough at prediciting climate and weather (especially with solar and other factors affecting it) to just assume. To me it sounds like "Temps are going up, CO2 is in the air, therefore CO2 is causing the temp to go up". I sense the same circular reasoning that theists use in their arguments. It's never been a right/left issue for me. Let's also not ignore the fact that a very large number of climate change scientists have a predisposition to environmental protection. They seek science that helps their argument and likely deny any that disproves or contradicts it. And when they can't ignore/deny the counter argument they come up with things like Climate Change instead of Global Warming to better suit their study.

Yah and you don't know how your toaster works either...So you know what? You don't tell the Engineers making a toaster how to do their job. Likewise, you don't know shit about climatology, so you and the other 99% of the people completely ignorant on the subject should just, sit down, shut up, and listen to what the scientists says. Your opinion, my opinion, and the other 99% of peoples opinion don't mean diddly shit.

The problem here is people like you, who knows almost nothing on the subject think you should get a vote. as if science has to accommodate the idiots who know nothing about it. Science is not a democracy! Just because you were born does not give you a right to voice your opinion on the matter. If people would learn this, we would all be far better off.

LOL. You're a fuckin idiot.



And I know exactly how my toaster works.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: WTF?
(28-02-2012 08:35 AM)bemore Wrote:  Im sorry but with all of the amazing technological advances that this earth has enjoyed over the last 100 years you mean to tell me that NO ONE EVER....not yet come up with alternatives to using oil???

So they can fiddle with DNA.....they can mutate viruses.....they have the LHC in CERN smashing particles together trying to discover the secrets of the universe..........yet we still have such a reliance on oil???

... No one has ever found a better way than using oil, yes. It's a sucky way because it screws us, but it screws us in an incremental fashion so we don't see the results of our folly until later. There are alternatives to oil like nuclear energy but they come with their own associated risk factors and difficulties. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and the fact that we've been getting one for so long suggests that a rather large bill is eventually going to have to be paid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2012, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2012 07:09 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: WTF?
(28-02-2012 08:35 AM)bemore Wrote:  
(28-02-2012 02:57 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  The problem here is people like you, who knows almost nothing on the subject think you should get a vote. as if science has to accommodate the idiots who know nothing about it. Science is not a democracy! Just because you were born does not give you a right to voice your opinion on the matter. If people would learn this, we would all be far better off.

Sorry but I dont share your "faith" in believing everything that the goverment spouts.....because it is quite evident that the only thing to come out of all this is more taxation.

Im sorry but with all of the amazing technological advances that this earth has enjoyed over the last 100 years you mean to tell me that NO ONE EVER....not yet come up with alternatives to using oil???

So they can fiddle with DNA.....they can mutate viruses.....they have the LHC in CERN smashing particles together trying to discover the secrets of the universe..........yet we still have such a reliance on oil???

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have faith in Science, not the govt.

The govt spouts? Which govt controls nearly every climatologist throughout the world again?

There are alternatives to oil, lots of them. The problem is that oil is so cheap, even now. The amount of work you can do with a single barrel of oil is really outrageous, and no simple invention will even come close to rivaling the efficiency of oil. No one is just sitting on an infinite energy machine I am afraid.... That makes no sense at all, and this is not the conspiracy forum. I can understand your distrust in govt, but why science and engineering?

The odd thing about your post is that you seem to be in favor of getting off oil, yet skeptical of the govts participation. Normally its the same people who dont like the idea of carbon taxing that don't like green technology. WHY? As you said, MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!

The only way to effectively get off oil anytime soon is through the govt. The govt has to support green technology to get us off oil, its literally the only way. Well other than fusion reactors, but that's a couple decades off at least, and by then most of the easily accessible oil on the planet will be gone anyways. Green technology, even as it stands now, could supply us with sufficient power if we would make the switch. There would be a sizable upfront cost, but the overall cost averaged over about a decade would roughly be the same, and then go down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: