Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- deathboy0
its good to practice the 3 Rs and be responsible for waste and try to minimize impact on the environment. its self serving and people should be concious of it.
And i see the biggest human contributing factor to human environmental changes is increased population. After all if the human factor is the problem than the human is the problem. Hard to deny that. So let those who feel strongly about it start calling for population control instead of regulation. Let those who love the environment enough decide to stop reproducing. Regulation to curb human populations without creating suffering for some is a fallacy. Im curious if the tune would change. Id like to see the people moral and mental gymnastics in that feat.
Of course the quagmire in controlling birth rates is dillution of the gene pools based on man law and not natural law. Who reproduces and liberties of individuals. I wont make that call but nor do i make the call for mans law to magically control climate change. its the catch22 protaginists of human effect always ignore. If u believe it and u have a kid what is going to stop an average 70 years of pollution from that one kid. Do you think there is some sort of philosopher stone that will wipe the slate clean without a price.
I say let ignorance play its part but not in the legal system. Hate to say it but so far survival of the fittest has worked. Screw security of the cowards and their protectionsim. Be personally responsible and vote with every dollar you spend. Do what benefits you including the small scale recycling stuff. Try not to harm others out of your fear. And make the best life you can for yourself knowing you have no security. It is what it is.
Just seems like the 1% making people jump at ghosts. Funny im curious how much of the 1% is based in washington DC. I read recently that washington DC has surpassed silicon valley as the wealthiest place. Or who knows maybe theyre the 10% stealing the wealth of 1% who knows.
Either way ill continue my own conservational environemnt stuff. and you guys bitch about it and willfully ignore what u do that supports what u hate. at least im honest about what i do.
- deathboy0
its good to practice the 3 Rs and be responsible for waste and try to minimize impact on the environment. its self serving and people should be concious of it.
And i see the biggest human contributing factor to human environmental changes is increased population. After all if the human factor is the problem than the human is the problem. Hard to deny that. So let those who feel strongly about it start calling for population control instead of regulation. Let those who love the environment enough decide to stop reproducing. Regulation to curb human populations without creating suffering for some is a fallacy. Im curious if the tune would change. Id like to see the people moral and mental gymnastics in that feat.
Of course the quagmire in controlling birth rates is dillution of the gene pools based on man law and not natural law. Who reproduces and liberties of individuals. I wont make that call but nor do i make the call for mans law to magically control climate change. its the catch22 protaginists of human effect always ignore. If u believe it and u have a kid what is going to stop an average 70 years of pollution from that one kid. Do you think there is some sort of philosopher stone that will wipe the slate clean without a price.
I say let ignorance play its part but not in the legal system. Hate to say it but so far survival of the fittest has worked. Screw security of the cowards and their protectionsim. Be personally responsible and vote with every dollar you spend. Do what benefits you including the small scale recycling stuff. Try not to harm others out of your fear. And make the best life you can for yourself knowing you have no security. It is what it is.
Just seems like the 1% making people jump at ghosts. Funny im curious how much of the 1% is based in washington DC. I read recently that washington DC has surpassed silicon valley as the wealthiest place. Or who knows maybe theyre the 10% stealing the wealth of 1% who knows.
Either way ill continue my own conservational environemnt stuff. and you guys bitch about it and willfully ignore what u do that supports what u hate. at least im honest about what i do.
- i totally on purpose posted twice becuase im super duper seriousdeathboy
- OH MY GOD...homo!!!Hombre_Lobo
- :D teeeeeheeesHombre_Lobo
- heh!deathboy
- i agree, deathboyCanHasQBN
- inteliboy0
mother: clean your room
deathboy: [insert 2 page matter of fact opinion on why it's inevitable his room dirty, part of life, solar flares will destroy their house anyway and therefore should not bother cleaning it up]- haha clean ill clean my room but mother i dont think i can clean the entire worlddeathboy
- come one only one boy can dust and vacuum so muchdeathboy
- and if that window stays open with the wind im afraid i cant keep up with all of the dirtdeathboy
- but ill try. and if you force me to work nonstop cleaning the symptoms of a problem i think ill suffer more than i need toodeathboy
- utopian0
I am 99% sure that the Big Oil does not give two fucks!
- deathboy0
Dammit why cant we control these darned flares. We're the 99% we should be able to kick the suns ass. OR fine maybe the sun is 2% but we got the numbers.
- omg-1
It's unstoppable. The 99% can only sit back and watch the world burn.
- utopian1
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases
The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
- utopian1
NASA sees giant crack forming in Antarctic glacier
NASA scientists are watching a giant crack forming over a vulnerable Antarctic glacier and they think it will soon break off into an iceberg the size of New York City.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/sto…
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2…
- deathboy-1
@utopian
Why is the true boxes on both different? How does not planning and having a strong economy and everyone happy different than a mild recession if the shit hits the fan and a strong climate change happens. He draws to large conculsions from this without explaining his reasoning. I assume he wants u to assume spending and creating a recession will lead to the ability to control climate change. while the other of just doing what works for the larger number will create a bad future when climate change happens. If both take the same climate change blow id think the healthier economy with less of a recession will better weather the storm than those in the recession. right? if thats the logic... Unless there is implied climate controls and unequal climate effects based on decisions. If thats the case than what climate control supports were created at the cost of the recession and what did the naysayers do that create such a distructive outcome for them? I cant help but think that outlooks is silly too since its trying to generalize to viewpoints and make no claims in why they what reason they differ.
- deathboy-1
oh and i saw your comments now scarabin.
adaptation and evolution and progess isnt created through policies. policies distort natural incentives of growth. policy can help but the path to hell is paved with good intentions and politcians prefer to push good inentions instead of reason these days. Most are unsound without much research. Their good intentions are smokescreen to promote their own self interests. They probably believe the good intentions will work out. But its so much easyier to believe a sweet lie than bitter reality.
And i not rather die than worry about environment. I think my views support a more natural take than a few cronie capitalist/politicans 1% saying they have the best of intentions that also serve their interests. I personally take the time to lower my impact because i care. The ones that are self serving in my natural environment. It just the right thing to do. Hell i dont plan on having any kids how much do i save there for global impact? Not to say other shouldnt, its up to them. But adds to a hypocritical viewpoint of the ones that believe strongly in conservation and changes in policies based environment control.
Its just a lot of bullshit and peopel playing tug of war to serve their own self interests and say its for the greater good. Once you accept the nature that stopping climate change or controlling it is out of the question its far easier to see the motives behind it.
- utopian1
A refresher crash course for the inbreds!
- think the his problem is in his approach of smiley faces in both in the true categories. the truth of yes says u can control itdeathboy
- if we do something cuasing larger costs and it happens it measn less ppl resources for recovery.deathboy
- afterall if it happens wouldnt it be the same or is the idea that spending money now can control it?deathboy
- really utopian. Do u think its better to go into an climate catstrophy in a recession or a healthy system?deathboy
- His work incase theres a cliamte change and suffer mild recession if there is pushes the idea we develop a way to control climate.deathboy
- control climate and doesnt address it if we dont promote green technologies and there is a climate changedeathboy
- does that make sense in these small comment blocks?deathboy
- deathboy-1
Hell the environmental effects of electric hybrids are pretty effed up. Hard to tell the effects of pushing them through large subsidies have. The increase in electricity created through fossil fuels/nuclear/natural methods. The environmental effects of creating and disposal of old and new vehicles, the economic impacts of paying 20k more for a car that save about 1200 dollars a year and the how long you hold onto a car to recoup the costs for the sake of the environment. creation and disposal of a growing amount of batteries. Much like the disposal of growing waste of computers.
Hard to predict the economic/environmental impacts of just pushing one fix. Now tie that into everything else which is currently changing. Hard to tell the effects the costs and rewards over time. Id like to believe there is some number junkies brilliant fucks out there who know all of it. but i find it hard to believe especially looking at the incentives there results are based on.
Hard to say. Dont want to sound nihilistic but its hard not too. Maybe better to focus energy of climate change math heads to better what we have. Focus on the now. And be very skeptical of incentives of people promoting the same arguments of heaven or hell in decisions.
- you realize those hybrids are made by the same people, right?scarabin
- a more specific argument with largely hard to tell future ends. and still many questions and speculationsdeathboy
- i understand. i see they get great incentive to push more expensive cars and increase profits all for good intentionsdeathboy
- and have government subsidize it on top of itdeathboy
- its a great way to inflate an industry and create jobs for awhile. while being ignorant of the real causality of the decisionsdeathboy
- the decisionsdeathboy
- deathboy0
Occam's Razor works on smaller scale stuff. Say we have a greater understanding in the last 100 years, but for the last 10,000 we really dont know that much, nor all the factors. Even in the last few thousands we have differing views based on different evidence and priority given to evidence to support different hypothesis. Personally I havent found a way to slice away natural dynamics to give a high yield of probability. Like i said i think climate change is as dynamic as life, especially on smaller scale. If i used the razor on larger scale calculations id say we are likely to push the envelope of warming a few hundred years leading to a natural cold cycle. But that would be about as good as a weather man predicting the weather in a 2 month timeline.I just dont think with the varying factor you can have good predictions. I think it needs to be compared to a small scale but as many variables as a single human being. Their life, genetics and choices, random chance.
Im only arguing against our innate desire of security and our ignorance in thinking we control everything. And of the ability of men to exasperate the ill effects when thinking they can control things. A quick example is the ignorance of greenspan with a more localized economic policy. I dont know. I cant understand how others can take a few variables and time scales and think they know and take it as an absolute.
But hey let me predict climate will change warmer or colder or both on a timeline and there is nothing we can do except hedge it slightly a bit on the timeline, and theur will be costs. that im pretty certain of.
- scarabin1
i think it's great that you're aware that there's misinformation out there but you're really erring on the side of ruin here. if YOU'RE wrong the entire human race could go extinct. if WE'RE wrong, oops, the air is cleaner.
- depends on the regulation. error could cause large food shortages. look at corn ethanoldeathboy
- i feel more secure in natural selection controlling than government policy on the issue. i think humans error far more frequentlydeathboy
- more frequentlydeathboy
- and of course i support the 3 R's and measures in a free market that dont cause suffering.deathboy
- and not to say regulations cant help, its just like playing with fire. look at the politicians these daysdeathboy
- theyll have good intentions that create great suffering if it promotes their goals, and hollow apogies on top of a pile of bonesdeathboy
- of bonesdeathboy
- yes, humans adapt. we won't let people starve because of pollution regulations, we'll change the way we grow food. that needs revamping as well. this is all part of the "industrialization" and "adaptation" you keep referring to.scarabin
- that needs revamping as well. this is all part of the "industrialization" and "adaptation" you keep referring to.scarabin
- toscarabin
- the only way "nature will sort it all out" is by its creatures figuring out how to not ruin it for ourselves. THIS is evolution.scarabin
- evolution and adpatation isnt done from policy. policy creates a false cost reward bubble.deathboy
- policy creates housing bubbles. perverse incentives instead on natural state incentivesdeathboy
- i think that's an incredibly myopic view. policy has done a lot for a lot of people. just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's automatically badscarabin
- bad. what you're expecting is a sort of reverse entropy herescarabin
- BRNK0
Well aren't you an expert.
- no are u? how bout the meteorlogists on tv? can they accurately predict the weather? and in what time frame?deathboy
- Im saying with all the dynamic factors its basically impossible. let go of the idea of controldeathboy
- if not your gonna be controlled by the people who beleive they have controldeathboy
- i like the security of a certain climate as the next person. i more concerned with how far scared ppl who think they can control it will godeathboy
- control it will go, especially in times when its stable. ill take chances with adaptation then man thinking theyre better than naturedeathboy
- nature
deathboy - Occam's Razor, bro.BRNK
- translation: "i'd rather die ("adaptation") than care for the earth any more than science can prove i must"scarabin
- deathboy0
^ pretty silly. Proving climate change isnt happening is like suggesting you can stop climate change. Anyone on both those pitches are silly.
But he did mention to what extant we do it. And i still find that data almost impossible to calculate. Sea currents, flares, the moons orbit getting farther away, earthquakes, historical climate cycles(much liek seasons but in the thousands of years) and man throughout different countries and different levels of industrialization in different localities, all being measured to equate something in a non biased way? And sure other factors im missing, i bet the magnetic field, levels of ozone and other shit matter too. I think the "science" of it is quack for the msot part to push funding and grants and special subsidies.
Can u predict when a man is going to die or what hes going to do in ten days with all the factors and random variables involved? Climate change isnt a science or some sort of more stable thing like gravity. The idea we can control it is a gross ignorance of our importance and role in nature. And the negation of looking at the cause and effects of trying to do so and thinking we're awesome is retarded.
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either
a daring adventure or nothing."Thats the approach i take to this. We're all gonna die. So lets not be afraid and try to change the inevitable through policies that will only hinder and cause suffering with the time we got. If better tech comes and at a lower cost than awesome im all for that. But im not for oh no this is pollution so stop that and see 1000s if not mroe suffer from a few peoples need to feel secure or protect their ways.
- i think climate change is more like life. immortal but still life, until sun collapses and swallows the planet of coursedeathboy
- This is not a rebuttal to the video above.BRNK
- Even if trying to change the climate, not trying to change the climate (even in vane) is irresponsible.BRNK
- I meant "Even if trying to change the climate is silly," derp.BRNK
- BRNK0
Fucking this.
- (Looking at you, deathboy.)BRNK
- i said climate change is going to happen with or without us. And i question wether we adjust by 10,100,or 1000 years.deathboy
- unless of course that little ice age was man made and could have been prevented?deathboy
- i also think the cliamte change is fear mongering like heaven or hell as an outcome. a simple method of controldeathboy
- to what end though? to scare us into being more conscious about our pollution?scarabin
- it's only the wealthy polluters who even have a reason for fear-mongering misinfoscarabin
- politicians have no incentives? they cant gain any support by preaching some sort of security?deathboy
- through political lobbying. again corn ethanol ring any bells.deathboy
- corps sell into politicians, politcians sell it to as greater good with a larger markup.deathboy
- we didnt buy the corps markup. but are more likely to buy it at others costs. or forced toodeathboy
- lowimpakt0
sorry, to be more accurate i meant the rate of growth won't be the same.
this is a slightly better description of what I mean- http://www.economist.com/blogs/d…
- lowimpakt0
the world population isn't going to continue growing like it has. we will enter a phase of decline because of a number of socio-economic factors.
- Hombre_Lobo-1
^and now we move on to high levels of mercury found in several modern day vaccines including swine flu H1N1.
Mercury causes infertility btw and bizarrely some test show it causes autism.
what a wonderful money driven world we live in :D