Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]
I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here. [/quote]
So you’re telling us that for some reason Americans wouldn’t be capable of doing what the Dutch were doing decades and even hundreds of years ago?[/quote]
Fair point about the Dutch. But I do question our ability to efficiently build the infrastructure that will be required to deal with the inevitability of rising sea levels.
All I want is for the debate to be settled and move onto the solution phase. Planning for levees now would be a good idea.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Not all of them are, but most of the links provided in these sorts of discussions from the anti-climate change crowd are from people who, upon further investigation, are not scientists or are scientists who work for “think tanks” and lobbyists who operate with oil industry money. The Heartland Institute and pretty much everything posted on Forbes’ website fits that bill perfectly.
I almost pissed myself laughing at James Taylor’s bio in one of the articles Doogie provided. He says he “studied” science in college and has a degree in “government”. All that means is that he took a couple of required science classes as part of his general education requirements. And he’s writing on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization receiving millions and millions from the oil industry. Another article was written by a guy who was the editor-in-chief of a major oil industry trade magazine.
You mention the catastrophic predictions. Yes, those are and were ridiculous. That isn’t the entirety of the scientific community, but when it suits your argument it all of a sudden becomes indicative of the whole thing. It’s disingenuous and you know it. There’s a middle ground, but you refuse to acknowledge its existence and prefer to deal with one extreme or the other. I think the extreme views on either end are ridiculous, but quite frankly, given the potential consequences, I’d rather lend a little more credibility to the alarmists than the deniers. Over-prepared beats under-prepared any day of the week.
And I’ll remind you that I have NEVER called for massive governmental intrusion into the marketplace and that sort of thing. I’ve almost never called for anything along those lines. What I am talking about when I say “how to adjust to climate change” is more along the lines of infrastructure changes, personal changes, and that sort of thing. Chances are, if it’s anthropomorphic it’s too late to reverse anything in a meaningful way. But we can still prepare for the end result. You know, sort of like what the Armed Forces has been doing and calling for over the last couple years.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/debate-goes-military-prepares-climate-change/83968/[/quote]
Your stance is all well and good. The problem as I see it is the main people and entities pushing the GW agenda are doing so for the sole benefit of profiting off it as much as possible as evidenced by their willingness to falsify data. I do not believe our actions will lead to human extinction, and if so then so be it, therefore the tried and true adage “Give an inch and they will take a mile” holds true and allowing them to set policy will have disastrous effects on our economy not to mention an increase in the size and scope of government.
If this doesn make sense I blame the high alcohol content of my Belgian pale ale.
[/quote]
First of all, who are the “main people” and what makes them the “main people”? Secondly, how do you know anything about their intentions?
Like I said before, you keep assuming that the fringe element is the MAIN element, and it’s not. It’s ALWAYS the fringe elements that get the attention, in anything. It’s the fringe element that is falsifying data, not the majority of the scientific community.
Our actions certainly can lead to human extinction. Shit, we already have more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out literally every human on the planet. We’re a doomed, fatalistic species destined to die off on this planet. That is simply our nature, to consume and consume until there is none left.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]
I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here. [/quote]
So you’re telling us that for some reason Americans wouldn’t be capable of doing what the Dutch were doing decades and even hundreds of years ago?[/quote]
No, we aren’t. You know why? Because creating an infrastructure like the Dutch have would cost money. And guess who is going to throw a shitfit about that? The GOP. And then they’ll justify this by pointing to “studies” from oil industry lobbyists/shills that deny any sort of climate change at all. And then nothing happens until it’s too late. By then, the GOP will have come up with some warped way to blame liberals for all of it.[/quote]
The problem on the Eastern seaboard is not actually rising sea levels but rather the land is sinking.
Sea levels dropped dramatically after the last little ice age due to ocean water freezing. That’s why Ephesus is now 5km inland. It’s why the Roman port of Ostia Antica is now two miles from the Tiber. These are naturally occurring changes and there is literally no evidence - none, zip - to show that humans are having any measurable impact on levels.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]
I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here. [/quote]
So you’re telling us that for some reason Americans wouldn’t be capable of doing what the Dutch were doing decades and even hundreds of years ago?[/quote]
No, we aren’t. You know why? Because creating an infrastructure like the Dutch have would cost money. And guess who is going to throw a shitfit about that? The GOP. And then they’ll justify this by pointing to “studies” from oil industry lobbyists/shills that deny any sort of climate change at all. And then nothing happens until it’s too late. By then, the GOP will have come up with some warped way to blame liberals for all of it.[/quote]
The problem on the Eastern seaboard is not actually rising sea levels but rather the land is sinking.
Sea levels dropped dramatically after the last little ice age due to ocean water freezing. That’s why Ephesus is now 5km inland. It’s why the Roman port of Ostia Antica is now two miles from the Tiber. These are naturally occurring changes and there is literally no evidence - none, zip - to show that humans are having any measurable impact on levels.[/quote]
It’s not a comment on global warming, but somewhat related to this is the disappearance of the wetlands of Louisiana. It has to do with how we’ve changed the course of the Mississippi River. Instead of the sediments from the river being caught in currents that deposit it on the Louisiana shore, it’s now just being dumped straight into the Gulf of Mexico.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Not all of them are, but most of the links provided in these sorts of discussions from the anti-climate change crowd are from people who, upon further investigation, are not scientists or are scientists who work for “think tanks” and lobbyists who operate with oil industry money. The Heartland Institute and pretty much everything posted on Forbes’ website fits that bill perfectly.
I almost pissed myself laughing at James Taylor’s bio in one of the articles Doogie provided. He says he “studied” science in college and has a degree in “government”. All that means is that he took a couple of required science classes as part of his general education requirements. And he’s writing on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization receiving millions and millions from the oil industry. Another article was written by a guy who was the editor-in-chief of a major oil industry trade magazine.
You mention the catastrophic predictions. Yes, those are and were ridiculous. That isn’t the entirety of the scientific community, but when it suits your argument it all of a sudden becomes indicative of the whole thing. It’s disingenuous and you know it. There’s a middle ground, but you refuse to acknowledge its existence and prefer to deal with one extreme or the other. I think the extreme views on either end are ridiculous, but quite frankly, given the potential consequences, I’d rather lend a little more credibility to the alarmists than the deniers. Over-prepared beats under-prepared any day of the week.
And I’ll remind you that I have NEVER called for massive governmental intrusion into the marketplace and that sort of thing. I’ve almost never called for anything along those lines. What I am talking about when I say “how to adjust to climate change” is more along the lines of infrastructure changes, personal changes, and that sort of thing. Chances are, if it’s anthropomorphic it’s too late to reverse anything in a meaningful way. But we can still prepare for the end result. You know, sort of like what the Armed Forces has been doing and calling for over the last couple years.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/debate-goes-military-prepares-climate-change/83968/[/quote]
Your stance is all well and good. The problem as I see it is the main people and entities pushing the GW agenda are doing so for the sole benefit of profiting off it as much as possible as evidenced by their willingness to falsify data. I do not believe our actions will lead to human extinction, and if so then so be it, therefore the tried and true adage “Give an inch and they will take a mile” holds true and allowing them to set policy will have disastrous effects on our economy not to mention an increase in the size and scope of government.
If this doesn make sense I blame the high alcohol content of my Belgian pale ale.
[/quote]
First of all, who are the “main people” and what makes them the “main people”? Secondly, how do you know anything about their intentions?
Like I said before, you keep assuming that the fringe element is the MAIN element, and it’s not. It’s ALWAYS the fringe elements that get the attention, in anything. It’s the fringe element that is falsifying data, not the majority of the scientific community.
Our actions certainly can lead to human extinction. Shit, we already have more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out literally every human on the planet. We’re a doomed, fatalistic species destined to die off on this planet. That is simply our nature, to consume and consume until there is none left.[/quote]
IPCC, Al Gore, USGCRP, to name a few. Their intentions are the acquisition of money and power.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Not all of them are, but most of the links provided in these sorts of discussions from the anti-climate change crowd are from people who, upon further investigation, are not scientists or are scientists who work for “think tanks” and lobbyists who operate with oil industry money. The Heartland Institute and pretty much everything posted on Forbes’ website fits that bill perfectly.
I almost pissed myself laughing at James Taylor’s bio in one of the articles Doogie provided. He says he “studied” science in college and has a degree in “government”. All that means is that he took a couple of required science classes as part of his general education requirements. And he’s writing on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization receiving millions and millions from the oil industry. Another article was written by a guy who was the editor-in-chief of a major oil industry trade magazine.
You mention the catastrophic predictions. Yes, those are and were ridiculous. That isn’t the entirety of the scientific community, but when it suits your argument it all of a sudden becomes indicative of the whole thing. It’s disingenuous and you know it. There’s a middle ground, but you refuse to acknowledge its existence and prefer to deal with one extreme or the other. I think the extreme views on either end are ridiculous, but quite frankly, given the potential consequences, I’d rather lend a little more credibility to the alarmists than the deniers. Over-prepared beats under-prepared any day of the week.
And I’ll remind you that I have NEVER called for massive governmental intrusion into the marketplace and that sort of thing. I’ve almost never called for anything along those lines. What I am talking about when I say “how to adjust to climate change” is more along the lines of infrastructure changes, personal changes, and that sort of thing. Chances are, if it’s anthropomorphic it’s too late to reverse anything in a meaningful way. But we can still prepare for the end result. You know, sort of like what the Armed Forces has been doing and calling for over the last couple years.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/debate-goes-military-prepares-climate-change/83968/[/quote]
Your stance is all well and good. The problem as I see it is the main people and entities pushing the GW agenda are doing so for the sole benefit of profiting off it as much as possible as evidenced by their willingness to falsify data. I do not believe our actions will lead to human extinction, and if so then so be it, therefore the tried and true adage “Give an inch and they will take a mile” holds true and allowing them to set policy will have disastrous effects on our economy not to mention an increase in the size and scope of government.
If this doesn make sense I blame the high alcohol content of my Belgian pale ale.
[/quote]
First of all, who are the “main people” and what makes them the “main people”? Secondly, how do you know anything about their intentions?
Like I said before, you keep assuming that the fringe element is the MAIN element, and it’s not. It’s ALWAYS the fringe elements that get the attention, in anything. It’s the fringe element that is falsifying data, not the majority of the scientific community.
Our actions certainly can lead to human extinction. Shit, we already have more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out literally every human on the planet. We’re a doomed, fatalistic species destined to die off on this planet. That is simply our nature, to consume and consume until there is none left.[/quote]
IPCC, Al Gore, USGCRP, to name a few. Their intentions are the acquisition of money and power.
[/quote]
Al Gore is NOT one of the main people here. He’s a non-entity and he isn’t even a scientist, so the only people who listen to him are fringe elements. Strike one.
I’d give you the IPCC, except that the backlash against their latest report is coming from scientists on both sides of the issue, which leads me to believe that they, too, are not part of the mainstream since the mainstream is so critical of them.
What info has the USGCRP deliberately falsified?
This is all fine and well, except that you forget the same holds true for the other side of the argument. And based on the links that people like yourself have provided throughout this thread, I tend to believe that the falsification and misrepresentation of information is at least as egregious as anything you have claimed about the alarmist faction on the other end.
Did you really think that articles written by an oil industry lobbyist and the editor-in-chief of an oil industry trade magazine were credible sources? Did you really think that they were operating with magnanimity instead of a lust for power and money?
And let’s not try to argue that that isn’t who the articles were written by/for. It says who they are right there in their byline. It’s indisputable. Just like the alarmist side doesn’t think you’re capable of putting two and two together to conclude that the same people making the alarmist predictions are the ones who were predicting that by 2000 the oceans would be devoid of coral reefs, the denier side doesn’t think you or I will delve far enough into things to figure out that the “rebuttal” stories that sites like Forbes or the Wall Street Journal regularly publish aren’t written by scientists at all but by oil industry lobbyists and investors.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]
I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here. [/quote]
So you’re telling us that for some reason Americans wouldn’t be capable of doing what the Dutch were doing decades and even hundreds of years ago?[/quote]
No, we aren’t. You know why? Because creating an infrastructure like the Dutch have would cost money. And guess who is going to throw a shitfit about that? The GOP. And then they’ll justify this by pointing to “studies” from oil industry lobbyists/shills that deny any sort of climate change at all. And then nothing happens until it’s too late. By then, the GOP will have come up with some warped way to blame liberals for all of it.[/quote]
The problem on the Eastern seaboard is not actually rising sea levels but rather the land is sinking.
Sea levels dropped dramatically after the last little ice age due to ocean water freezing. That’s why Ephesus is now 5km inland. It’s why the Roman port of Ostia Antica is now two miles from the Tiber. These are naturally occurring changes and there is literally no evidence - none, zip - to show that humans are having any measurable impact on levels.[/quote]
The opposite is happening in Virginia. Coastal towns that used to flood only during extreme weather events are now flooding regularly during high tides.
Whether or not the changes are anthropomorphic is completely immaterial to my point here. Why you bring it up despite my almost total avoidance of the issue in this thread tells me you have nothing else of substance to say and all you want is an argument. I know your legs are fucked and all that, and I wish you a speed recovery, but seriously, try to entertain yourself in another way while you’re stuck at home behind a computer.
What I am talking about is preparing for changes that are already occurring. I’m simply talking about infrastructure changes, voluntary changes within certain industries, and voluntary lifestyle changes by individuals. And here you are arguing about the causes.
The car is out of control, the brakes don’t work, the brick wall is getting closer, and while everyone is scrambling trying to get safely out of the car, you’re sitting in the backseat with your dick in your hand (there’s your opportunity for your other favorite pastime on here, gay-bashing and projecting your latent homosexuality on others) wondering about why the brakes aren’t working and if replacing them is a cost-effective way to solve the issue at hand.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The opposite is happening in Virginia. Coastal towns that used to flood only during extreme weather events are now flooding regularly during high tides.
Whether or not the changes are anthropomorphic is completely immaterial to my point here.
[/quote]
I fail to see how that is so in light of the fact that you claim Republicans will prevent anything from being done due to their subservience to “oil industry shills.”
Fantasy. You’ve been arguing throughout this entire thread that anthropogenic climate change is a major problem. I was refuting the alarmist claims about DC being underwater by the end of the week.
My legs are fine now thanks. I’m stuck at home because I work and study from my home computer.
Gay bashing? I oppose gay marriage. People ask why. I tell them and therefore I’m “gay bashing.” Okay, whatever.
How do you prepare for changes that are constantly changing? First, global cooling was going to cause massive famines and large population die offs, then global warming was going to melt the glaciers, cause massive flooding, kill the polar bears, and again threaten to kill everyone on the planet, and now once again, temps have been actually shown to be cooling and we are all going to die from something else. If the alarmists can’t even agree on what the result of climate change is, how can anyone rationally decide which apocalyptic scenario to prepare for?
Utter foolishness.
[quote]dcb wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Scientists should be taken seriously. They’re much smarter than politicians are, and their motivations are more noble. They don’t have the same superficial biases and don’t have to appeal to a voter base. There aren’t any scientists looking to cash in on this, unlike Al Gore who has looked to influence government policy in order to cash-in on investments he made in the REC and carbon markets.
[/quote]
You’re putting scientists a pedestal that not all of them deserve to be on. Scientists may not have to appeal to a voter base but they do have to sell out at times to get grant money. Often times the people funding studies DO have an agenda and they don’t give money to scientists who don’t produce the results they want. Scientists at research universities who don’t bring in the dough don’t hang around. They certainly aren’t all like this, but there’s enough out there to make it a problem.
As for the rest of your post, I agree for the most part.[/quote]
You’re right, I did put scientists on a pedestal in my post. And I didn’t properly consider the politics behind grant funding. I got carried away with my loathing for politicians and they’re stupid buzz phrases and talking points.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
How do you prepare for changes that are constantly changing? First, global cooling was going to cause massive famines and large population die offs, then global warming was going to melt the glaciers, cause massive flooding, kill the polar bears, and again threaten to kill everyone on the planet, and now once again, temps have been actually shown to be cooling and we are all going to die from something else. If the alarmists can’t even agree on what the result of climate change is, how can anyone rationally decide which apocalyptic scenario to prepare for?
Utter foolishness.[/quote]
What is utter foolishness is you, AGAIN, resorting to the extreme scenarios as if that is the only scenario.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
How do you prepare for changes that are constantly changing? First, global cooling was going to cause massive famines and large population die offs, then global warming was going to melt the glaciers, cause massive flooding, kill the polar bears, and again threaten to kill everyone on the planet, and now once again, temps have been actually shown to be cooling and we are all going to die from something else. If the alarmists can’t even agree on what the result of climate change is, how can anyone rationally decide which apocalyptic scenario to prepare for?
Utter foolishness.[/quote]
What is utter foolishness is you, AGAIN, resorting to the extreme scenarios as if that is the only scenario.[/quote]
If nothing catastrophic is going to happen what is there to prepare for? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars we can ill afford to waste if life will go on as usual? If none of the dire predictions used in the past to spur the billions of dollars already wasted have come true, why then should we even care? If all we can expect are small localized changes, why not let the affected parties deal with it as it comes as humans have done for millennia?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
How do you prepare for changes that are constantly changing? First, global cooling was going to cause massive famines and large population die offs, then global warming was going to melt the glaciers, cause massive flooding, kill the polar bears, and again threaten to kill everyone on the planet, and now once again, temps have been actually shown to be cooling and we are all going to die from something else. If the alarmists can’t even agree on what the result of climate change is, how can anyone rationally decide which apocalyptic scenario to prepare for?
Utter foolishness.[/quote]
What is utter foolishness is you, AGAIN, resorting to the extreme scenarios as if that is the only scenario.[/quote]
If nothing catastrophic is going to happen what is there to prepare for? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars we can ill afford to waste if life will go on as usual? If none of the dire predictions used in the past to spur the billions of dollars already wasted have come true, why then should we even care? If all we can expect are small localized changes, why not let the affected parties deal with it as it comes as humans have done for millennia?
[/quote]
It’s only catastrophic if we are NOT PREPARED. A small rise in ocean levels means nothing to us if our ocean walls are better fortified. An increase in rainfall in areas like Sacramento or New Orleans means nothing if the levies surrounding those areas are reinforced. Droughts in places like the Southwest aren’t that big of a deal if we have a more effective way to store and distribute rainwater.
Again, you fail to see the middle ground. There are possible scenarios that fall between a reversal of the Gulf Stream and absolutely no change whatsoever. All you’re saying is that since the worst hasn’t happened, nothing has happened.
Are you even remotely aware of what has been going on out here in California the last couple years? California is the only state in the country without significant oversight of groundwater usage. We are also one of the largest producers of rice in the world, which is an extremely water-intensive crop. We are not prepared at all to deal with the possibility of an extended drought, which has happened in California’s history but not within the last couple hundred years or so.
Farmers are not prepared for continued water shortages. They have pumped so much water out of the ground that massive subsistence is now occurring, most dramatically in the San Joaquin Valley, although the Sacramento Valley is starting to see the same issues.
Subsistence doesn’t reverse itself. There are now significant chunks of railroad that are inoperable as a result of subsistence. In some areas, the ground has dropped more than a dozen feet over huge stretches of land. The next problem will be even worse. If/when we do get a shitload of rain out here, the lowest spots in the Central Valley are now so low that the water will not drain to the ocean, thereby flooding larger and larger chunks of farmland every year. Food prices will skyrocket as a result, jobs will be lost, people will be displaced. This isn’t a pipedream. It is happening RIGHT NOW.
We are not prepared for further droughts. This state will be absolutely FUCKED if we have another year or so of droughts. The same is already happening across the Southwest as well. Lake Mead is now lower than it’s been since the Hoover Dam was built. They aren’t prepared for it.
And by the way, you also seem to forget that many of the more “moderate” doom-and-gloom scenarios didn’t come true precisely because the preventative steps were taken. People used to say that our current rate of population growth, cities like LA and San Jose would look like something out of Bladerunner. It didn’t happen, not because scientists and alarmists were wrong, but because steps were taken to curb the amount of pollutants put into the air.
It’s 68 on a mid-July night in Indiana with almost zero humidity. It’s usually 90+ with 80% humidity. This climate disturbance stuff is amazing. I’m going to begin heating my house by burning styrofoam and tires to ensure it continues.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I got carried away with my loathing for politicians and they’re stupid buzz phrases and talking points.[/quote]
It happens.
This is a sign you’re starting to pay attention and thinking for yourself by the way. Good for you.
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
It’s 68 on a mid-July night in Indiana with almost zero humidity. It’s usually 90+ with 80% humidity. This climate disturbance stuff is amazing. I’m going to begin heating my house by burning styrofoam and tires to ensure it continues.[/quote]
Eh… It is a very typical July night in New England. Enjoy your strange.
Weatherman bursts into tears after reading climate alarmist report; decides to get a vasectomy; wants mankind to “go extinct:”
cwill, I meant to ask you something.
Where the fuck are you getting this idea that the globe is cooling?
I think this is an article that is especially relevant in light of this thread.
Globe is cooling say scientists: