MMGW
-
I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is.
But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it.
If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over.
WSS
I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is.
But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it.
If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over.
WSS
The cash won't disappear from the economy, it'll just be spread out. It will mean some businesses going bust, for sure, which sucks for them, but it's a capitalist evolution - the most efficient wins. If you find a way to mass produce the LED lightbulbs and still be profitable, then you drive your competition out of business. It's happened with things like butchers, green grocers and the rest. You can see it with places like Walmart that are trying to sell everything they possibly can, to corner every market, and they will because they're big enough that they can make the appropriate economies of scale.
It will mean that cash is funnelled into other areas, dependent on what you want to spend your spare dough on - holidays, technology etc.
I'm inclined to agree that there are some sensationalists that will tell you that the oceans will boil, the planet will turn to dust - and there'll be people telling us it's God's will as well and that it's the rapture! - but there are effects we're seeing now, like the freak weather everywhere. Massive cold in north america, massive heatwave in Australia (up to almost 130F), it's already happening.
-
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
-
Chris,
The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science
that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage.
Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted.
Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that
shows other causes of warming...and cooling?
It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to
talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell?
If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back
mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov
grants come from...
that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be
taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN,
and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much
anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity.
But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO !
Chris,
The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science
that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage.
Not in any meaningful way. The sun has been getting slightly warmer over the last 150 years, but if anything has been getting cooler over the last 35 years.
Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted.
Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that
shows other causes of warming...and cooling?
Anyone can publish a paper - you mean it doesn't get picked up by mainstream news? That's not related.
It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to
talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell?
I agree, we need to stop the deforestation, and attempt to reverse it. Unfortunately, this isn't a money-making policy, and at a time like this, giving money away to other countries is almost a guaranteed vote loser. This upsets me too.
If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back
mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov
grants come from...
that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be
taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN,
and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much
anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity.
This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place?
But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO !
It contributes, in however small a way.
-
A scientific theory. An important distinction.
Who on here has said we need to "stop CO2 from existing"?
What proof do you have of this conspiracy to shut down any views conflicting from the vast majority?
Also, it is climate change. Cold weather disproves nothing
-
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
Uhhhh...
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Generic politics blaming...
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
Uhhhh...
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
Nope, nobody's saying that.
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
*sigh* More doesn't mean better. We'll never stop CO2 from existing, it's a naturally occurring substance. We just need to rein in how much of it we're emitting.
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Back to your petition?
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness.
Do you even read what's written? You're a developer, I assume you must have some understanding of statistics. Basically, the distribution of temperatures is getting wider - volatility is increasing - while the average temperature rises gradually. Maybe you didn't notice the comment about it being ridiculously hot in Australia at the moment? Or Argentina? It's understandable to connect 'global warming' with 'it must be getting hotter everywhere' but that's just not how it works.
Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
Uhhhh...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
Uhhhh...
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Well it certainly wasn't me.
Right, I'm off, finished at work. I'll be back in the morning for round 137 of "the science is real" versus "it's all made up by politicians"
-
This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place?
-
I left for class this morning and it was -7 degrees outside. Clearly MMGW is false!
-
So like -16 without the wind chill this morning. Record low temperatures all over the country makes it sort of difficult to believe the global warming apocalypse doom-criers.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
-
You're sort of contradicting yourself there. Global warming/climate change doesn't necessarily mean that every place in the world will see its temperatures rise by a couple of degrees, while maintaining the same basic distribution; rather, it makes the likelihood/frequency of freak weather conditions increase, while the planet on average gets warmer. What you're experiencing now, would count as freak weather, I would say.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
-
I'm just complaining about the weather, bub. But you know once Cleveland was covered with glaciers so its not really that freak weather.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
...
Yes, we get it. It was cold before and then it warmed up. It has happened multiple times. This doesn't disprove the scientific theory that man is negatively affecting the climate right now.
You look over all of the data that we have, all of the trends that we have observed, the history of the climate beforehand.
Woody get this through your head dude. I've never disputed that man plays a role in "climate change" but there's not shit that can realistically be done about it and thusly I do. Not. Give. A. Fuck.
-
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
-
mmgw is a theory that is falling apart.
"virtually all scientists" is a falsehood.
-
Right, let's look at this petition then:
"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork?
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there.
On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment.
To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise?
Right, let's look at this petition then:
"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
Says what evidence? OR is it all just assumptions and guesswork?
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Yes, yes there is. I'm not going to go out and find every study on the subject - or just copy and paste a load of meaningless google results - but the evidence is there.
On top of the problems with the statements, there's the fact that it's only signed by 40k people - of which only 39 are climatologists. When you consider the sheer number of people that are qualified to the same level as the signatories that haven't signed, it becomes a bit less impressive. There are over 10 million scientists qualified in the fields stated on the petition, so it represents only about 0.4% of people that they are claiming are qualified to comment.
To get a more representative view, you should look at all the scientific papers being published on the subject matter and their conclusions on it. Fortunately, someone's already done this for us - lots of people, in fact. The most recent was in 2013, with the following results:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
-
Here's a great write-up on it:
(make sure ya read the part, second page, about how the
wording changed from one draft to another.)
-
Cal - that petition has already been addressed. Do I need to set up a similar but opposing petition and get it signed by a load of people to convince you otherwise? Chris
*******************************************************
You are missing the point. I don't have to prove a theory is fact. You do. And it has been proven
to be only a theory.
The fact that there are opposing views staunchly held by experts, a lot of them, on both sides, means
that mmgw is not a truth, not an absolute truth at all, and not any kind of fact. So, why all the dire demands
for taxes on all sorts of things and activities, on something that cannot be proven?
Ulterior, spread the wealth to poor countries kind of motives, make money for our mmgw businesses we
invested in, or started....
Read the entire Forbes article. Then comment on that.
-
Do we need to have ANOTHER lesson on what a scientific theory is?
Also, yes, there are opposing viewpoints. But acting like there are the same amount of qualified experts endorsing each view point is ridiculous
-
When Chicken Little did her exhaustive thesis and decided the sky was, in fact, falling she did indeed use all scientific data available to her at the time.
Was that the lesson you wanted to point out Woodrow?
WSS
-
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
Why can nothing realistically be done about it?
At one point it wasnt realistic to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe in seconds
When they make the tiniest bit of progress then we'll talk
-
Read http://www.buzzfeed.com/drewphilp/why-i-bought-a-house-in-detroit-for-500 and notice how an individual (or group of individuals) is/are doing their part to revitalize a community (with some "going green" thrown in for fun) contrasts with how the government a.) fucked up the 1st time and b.)will be fucking up again with regards to "revitalization"
Then ask yourself why you think government, or taxation is the answer to MMGW or MMCC? If you can read that article, then sit down and sincerely believe governmental control is the best option, then you deserve to have your legs beaten.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Wait, so he went to and graduated from the University of Michigan but was making $8.50 an hour at a construction company? I wonder what he majored in.
I still think some govt regulation is needed. Otherwise companies will just work in their own self interest, which may not be best for everyone else. The "answer" will be joint work between the scientific community and policy makers.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login