Global Warming

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 546 Responses
  • utopian-1

  • hans_glib0


    • Do you have a link to this data? looks interesting. We need to start building that extra 0.7237 of an earth soon or we're fucked!Ianbolton
    • spaceX, China National Space Administration, Indian Space Research Organisation...all looking at extraterrestrial possibilitiesuan
    • Considering we talk of the miracle that our planet is so perfect for our own existence, the possibilities of terraforming Mars - for example, sounds a little...Ianbolton
    • ridiculous.Ianbolton
    • first it's about survival...later generations can enjoy a comfortable next 1st world life.uan
    • meanwhile newly developed technology from space will help make 20th cent. consumerism culture on the planet obsolete. in 1-3 generations maybe.uan
    • @ianbolton: https://www.theworld… etc etchans_glib
    • Wait. How are we on 7.7Bn population already? I thought we'd not long-since hit 7Bn?!Nairn
    • Cheers Hans. Positives of that though is if we take all the sea life out the sea would that mean sea levels will fall so we'll all be safe?Ianbolton
    • Nairn... it's pretty obvious the patriarchy is winning!Ianbolton
    • Wolrld population has doubled in my lifetime. If I reach my mom's age, I expect it will have halved by then.nuggler
  • bliznutty0

    are you worried about rising sea levels?
    if so i have a solution to keep you all occupied: LEARN TO SWIM

  • Gnash0

    So twitter’s new ban on political ads has had the unfortunate side-effect of also banning ads from groups that are fighting climate change.

    So exhausting. It’s science not politics. As long as this issue is conflated this way nothing will change (aside from the climate)

    • Completely agreed. It's just one big UGH at this point.garbage
    • "It’s science not politics" - you my friend have no clue.pr2
    • The fact that it is seen as a political issue is a triumph of modern marketing sadly. Oil companies spent a huge amount of money to make it seem that way.yuekit
    • Lol, pr2, you certainly have the lock on cluesGnash
    • Can we just get rid of twitter?i_monk
    • @i_monk +1

      ..and FB while we're at it
      Krassy
    • climate forecasting is modelling; not science, which is hypothesis-theory-me... (replicate)-test-val...BustySaintClaire
    • @BustySaintClaire is speed science when predicting the outcome of a vehicle going fast? and modeling an outcome unless breaks are installed?Krassy
    • It's really more like predicting how fast that vehicle will be going next Tuesday.monNom
    • You realize science is 100%, entirely, all about predicting outcomes of phenomena, yes?i_monk
    • ^ thisGnash
    • forecasting models represent the actual scientific method at workmonospaced
    • The only reason to deny this science is if you've been brainwashed to do so by anti-science religious conservatives. That seems to be the group behind it all.monospaced
    • I wouldn’t go as far as including a religious element, profits are enough of an incentive to deny the scienceGnash
    • True. But those people not profiting who still deny it ...monospaced
    • and all the models put forth in the last 50 years have been without a doubt accurate? models are not hard science. more along lines of social sciencedeathboy
    • mostly opinion and bias based on donors criteria. There is more data in stock markets and yet that seems impossbile to predictdeathboy
    • Oh boy, you got so close to understanding something. So close.garbage
    • The hypocrisy of "mostly opinion and bias based on donors[sic] criteria" from someone denying near-unanimity among scientists in favour ofi_monk
    • a position that's *entirely* opinion and bias based on industrialists' criteria.i_monk
  • i_monk1


    • im pretty certain at a point many coastal cities will be effected by climate change. what i question is the idea humans can stop that from happening. up theredeathboy
    • with human sacrifice and chanting of irrational witch doctor shit.deathboy
    • and yet so many people jump on the band wagon of any witch doctor that promises no change with a little blood magic of a sortdeathboy
  • utopian0

    A newly unearthed journal from 1966 shows the coal industry, like the oil industry, was long aware of the threat of climate change.

    “Exxon knew.” Thanks to the work of activists and journalists, those two words have rocked the politics of climate change in recent years, as investigations revealed the extent to which giants like Exxon Mobil and Shell were aware of the danger of rising greenhouse gas emissions even as they undermined the work of scientists.

    But the coal industry knew, too — as early as 1966, a newly unearthed journal shows.

    In August, Chris Cherry, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, salvaged a large volume from a stack of vintage journals that a fellow faculty member was about to toss out. He was drawn to a 1966 copy of the industry publication Mining Congress Journal; his father-in-law had been in the industry and he thought it might be an interesting memento.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/a…

    http://www.climatefiles.com/coal…