Article: Climbate Change Irreversible - What to do now? - Page 3

**Malorn** · 2012-07-10, 08:15 PM

Meh.

CutterJohn · 2012-07-10, 08:44 PM

You're really using Bullshit! and a website called climategate(which is supported by adwords..) as citations?

And this gives you enough knowledge to be able to claim its a scam?

Hows about you do what everyone else should do. Say "I have no idea. I think I will let people much smarter than me who have made this their lifes study figure this stuff out."

Warborn · 2012-07-10, 10:10 PM

It's Malorn. Of course he's using a mediocre show by a couple libertarians and a website called climategate.com. Science? Facts? Research? These are clearly tools of the LIEberal media. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-07-10, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're really using Bullshit! and a website called climategate(which is supported by adwords..) as citations?

And this gives you enough knowledge to be able to claim its a scam?

Hows about you do what everyone else should do. Say "I have no idea. I think I will let people much smarter than me who have made this their lifes study figure this stuff out."

Or be a guy like me, and have this conversation with people:

"I think we should all pull together and work hard to make our consumption more sustainable."

"I think it's a liberal hoax and I'm not doing anything."

"Ok, whatever man."

Because frankly, I'm not the one giving this planet to my children. I won't have children. So I'll do whatever small part I can and then die and guess what? not my problem then. The human race can sleep in whatever beds it's made for their children.

**Malorn** · 2012-07-10, 10:51 PM

Meh.

Saifoda · 2012-07-10, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're really using Bullshit! and a website called climategate(which is supported by adwords..) as citations?

And this gives you enough knowledge to be able to claim its a scam?

Hows about you do what everyone else should do. Say "I have no idea. I think I will let people much smarter than me who have made this their lifes study figure this stuff out."

Truth, though I will say that even "expert" opinion is quite often wrong, mostly because many "experts" are not rightly appointed their titles.

Also the pro climate change crowd will often site snopes, change.com, and many other hugely "liberal-bias" sources (as it were); though for all I know you will be just as critical of them.

Anywho, the thing that particularly bothers me are the people that, as you say Malorn acts, read one little "study" (btw everybody should read the book How to Lie with Statistics) or, more frequently, read a news report about "a new study" and then THEY do nothing but run around preaching that humanity is the bane of the earth.

Vreki · 2012-07-10, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It still means many billions, if not trillions, of infrastructure ruined and lost, and equivalent amounts as people waste time rebuilding.

True, but on the other hand " people waste time rebuilding" is also "thousands of jobs created". Unlike when you spend those billions of dollars trying to save banks.

Warborn · 2012-07-11, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Saifoda

Truth, though I will say that even "expert" opinion is quite often wrong, mostly because many "experts" are not rightly appointed their titles.

97 - 98% of published climate researchers agree that global warming is due to human activities.

People who believe there is significant disagreement about global warming are mistaken. There is overwhelming consensus on the issue. If you believe that the researchers who support the idea of anthropogenic global warming are "experts", rather than experts, you would need to throw out the entire field of climate research and start anew.

There is not disagreement over it amongst researchers. This is exactly like evolution, or the 9/11 collapses, or any number of other things. The actual experts whose job it is to know the answer agree to an overwhelming extent. The only ambiguity that exists does so in the minds of lay people who aren't able to discern a credible source from a non-credible one.

Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source. Glenn Beck is not a credible source. [A Politician's Name Here] is not a credible source. Uncle Joe who seems to have a knack for anticipating the weather is not a credible source. There are people who have advanced degrees in related fields who get paid to study the climate and understand it. These are the people who you should be paying attention to. And around 98% of them who publish material for their colleagues to review agree that the cause of global warming is humans.

Neurotoxin · 2012-07-11, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

97 - 98% of published climate researchers agree that global warming is due to human activities.

People who believe there is significant disagreement about global warming are mistaken. There is overwhelming consensus on the issue. If you believe that the researchers who support the idea of anthropogenic global warming are "experts", rather than experts, you would need to throw out the entire field of climate research and start anew.

There is not disagreement over it amongst researchers. This is exactly like evolution, or the 9/11 collapses, or any number of other things. The actual experts whose job it is to know the answer agree to an overwhelming extent. The only ambiguity that exists does so in the minds of lay people who aren't able to discern a credible source from a non-credible one.

Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source. Glenn Beck is not a credible source. [A Politician's Name Here] is not a credible source. Uncle Joe who seems to have a knack for anticipating the weather is not a credible source. There are people who have advanced degrees in related fields who get paid to study the climate and understand it. These are the people who you should be paying attention to. And around 98% of them who publish material for their colleagues to review agree that the cause of global warming is humans.

This. 100% agree.

MrTinkles · 2012-07-11, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

We simply need to get out of mommy's house, Earth. Plenty of space for human beings to grow in this Universe. But of course there is always the question "how much will it cost?"

Money has zero value in the Universe. Yet it has constricted the growth of humans for centuries. A self imposed jail, that is getting crowded.

Wow...the question isn't "how much will it cost?" it's "where the hell can we go?"

There's nowhere else buddy...we're stuck here. No other planet or moon in this solar system is capable of supporting us. If it were technically possible to "get out of mommy's house" the resources needed to sustain a population would be far greater than any benefit of a reduced population on Earth.

And, your comment about the value of money...money is just how we barter those resources around. You may feel its at the root of some of our problems but it's hard to see how you could replace it and still get anything done (including building your mythological method to get the hell off the Earth before its too late).

Saifoda · 2012-07-11, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

1) Humans know a lot about living outside of Earth. 2) You dont need money to barter shit. Colored paper has only the value another human says it does. Outside of that, it's just colored paper. 3) It's hard to see how we can replace something that has ZERO value in the Universe? Oh the lulz.

You got a lot of learning about currency and money to do my friend.

And Warborn, so you're saying that my MBA gives me the authority to write about the failure of Facebook's stocks? And once having published said writing I will be considered an expert? Or maybe all the people working for facebook who thought it was a good idea who also had MBAs (that would be an advanced degree in business).

Again, read how to lie with statistics and try to remember the term "expert" is as fundamentally flawed as the notion of intrinsic value of currencies.

MrTinkles · 2012-07-11, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Vreki

I will believe them when they start to agree, but as it is now we get a steady stream of conflicting opinions.
There is always something new out there waiting to kill us all, which must be fought at enormous cost to society.
Holes in the ozone layer, radon in our houses, mad cow disease etc.
And yet a couple decades later that threat will just be a footnote in history.

"Science" has cried wolf one time to many.

I know this is a bit old now (I actually read this thread backwards...might even have made it more interesting!) but I've just noticed this!

That's completely wrong!!!

There was a hole (well, two) in the ozone layer and it would have been a lot bigger if we hadn't cut down on the use of CFCs. Fortunately it (the southern one...which was the larger of the two) rarely reached a size to affect populated areas...some years reaching the southern region of Australia and South America. Any increase in cancer due to the higher UVB reaching the Earths surface looks to have been restricted to places such as the extreme tip of Chile...(I suspect those who live there have a different viewpoint on "crying wolf")
Radon DOES seep into houses...and is responsible for thousands of deaths through lung cancer. It's the second biggest cause of lung cancer behind smoking.
And mad cow disease? thankfully there were relatively few deaths from CJD...how many more would there have been if we had done nothing? But, whatever, the science was spot on!

These are NOT examples of a "steady stream of conflicting opinions" but of proper scientific work and of reaching a consensus. There was almost no dissent at all on these three issues...by your own standard of "I will believe them when they start to agree",you should be right behind them!

Or are we saying that we shouldn't have bothered responding to these dangers but just let them happen?

That's a political issue (not to mention a moral one).

Vreki · 2012-07-11, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by MrTinkles

Or are we saying that we shouldn't have bothered responding to these dangers but just let them happen?

That's a political issue (not to mention a moral one).

No, I am saying that each of these issues got overblown to Armageddon like proportions.

Also, the latest I heard on domestic Radon poisoning was that it was only a practical concern if you are a smoker, or in other words are already working hard on getting lung cancer.

MrTinkles · 2012-07-11, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

1) Humans know a lot about living outside of Earth. 2) You dont need money to barter shit. Colored paper has only the value another human says it does. Outside of that, it's just colored paper. 3) It's hard to see how we can replace something that has ZERO value in the Universe? Oh the lulz.

1. What do humans know? Which humans? Kids at a Star Trek convention???

All we DO know is that we can't do it...beyond possibly a small (non-sustainable) colony of the moon or Mars...or even less likely some of the moon of, the further planets.

I repeat. The amount of resources needed to support any group of us on any of the few possible places in the solar system we could land on, let alone stay, are so huge that it is not viable. Look at the cost (or in your utopia, amount of bartering) that it has taken to keep a few ppl on the ISS or to stay on the moon for few days...

Sadly IF we ever were to make a new home on another world on in an artificial structure to escape this worlds problems (rather than just for science)...it would only be the super rich that got a place there.

By the time we have the technology (if ever) to move a substantial part of the worlds population...the truth, or otherwise of global warming and the consequences of it will be long gone...followed by, I would guess several other "global emergencies"... Be too late for anyone here or even their great great......etc...grandchildren.

2. No...but it makes it easier. That's why we use it.
Let's take a fantasy trip to your colony on planet X. I have just transported some oxygen from Earth (or manufactured it...i know the theories) which you need. Let's barter... You have a large amount of, say, aluminium which is a useful metal but unfortunately for you I already bartered some oxygen for that earlier. Do you have anything else I need...nope sorry. Oh well I'll be back next week. As you choke to death, you think - if only we had some system of tokens we could exchange with each other....whatever could we call it? Hmmmm......

Or is there more to my Star Trek reference than I at first thought? Do you really believe the Captain Picard line about..."money doesn't exist and we just work to better ourselves" (that's not the exact quote but I know Roddenbury had this philosophy that humans would advance like that). Do you think we'll all just SHARE??? God, look around you...all evidence to the contrary!!!

3. I mean, come on...what does that even mean? "zero value in the universe"...it has value if we give it value. As for (drum roll) the "others" out there...they might be merchant bankers...I don't know and neither do you.

"oh the lulz" - Aahhhh...the well argued point...so rare to see it...

Vreki · 2012-07-11, 05:18 AM

Colonizing other worlds will do nothing to help this world.
Think about it, to make a significant difference you would have to move billions of people offworld, a feat that makes the already unrealistic single colony ship pale in comparison.

And then in a matter of a few decades, the population will be back at the same levels again. In fact you will have to move around 75 million people offworld each year just to keep the current population stable.