Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[BerenTebogo]

#1 we'll be frozen, not turned to ash.

#2 long before we're frozen we'll starve to death from overpopulation and climate change killing off the majority of temperate crops on the planet

#3 wut? I don't think I've ever said we shouldn't look into fixing it - in fact I believe what I said was that stabilizing the global economy and the human presence on earth overall will do more for fixing GW than all the hybrids and fancy new lightbulbs ever could do.

Either I'm missing your point or you don't have one.

Edit: And ultimately and honestly: Humans do not fucking matter at all. We're insignificant and the problem of global warming is a problem solely to US. The "Save the planet! Stop global warming!" shit is ridiculous. As I've said there's nothing we can do to the planet short of nuking it to hell and back that the planet cant do to us 1,000,000,000 years sooner.

Fixing global warming is a human problem. Even if we fix global warming though in roughly 100,000 years (maybe more I'm kinda pulling this one out of my ass) if humans still inhabit earth we're going to have to worry about stopping the INEVITABLE climate shift anyways. If we don't stop global warming? Well we're fucked in 80,000 years (again, ass pulling, but to make a point)

[Stilzkin]

The planet, at our current pace, isn't in any DANGER. .

I don't think anyone thinks the actual earth is any danger as in we're going to break it in two or something. It's not even that we're going to kill all life, it's more like people fear causing ourselves problems (famine) and extinction of a good number of animals.

[Jer]

I don't know why you would say that humans are not causing global climate change, this is pretty much an indisputable fact.

If putting more CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT cause the earth to get warmer, then the universe as we know it is broken and nothing about heat and thermodynamics makes sense.

Humans contribute less than half of one percent of all green house gases.

Personally I would find the other 99.5 and change as the driving force, but hey, that's just me.

Edit: Perhaps I should have said 'not significant' or 'negligible' in my previous post.

[Stilzkin]

#3 wut? I don't think I've ever said we shouldn't look into fixing it - in fact I believe what I said was that stabilizing the global economy and the human presence on earth overall will do more for fixing GW than all the hybrids and fancy new lightbulbs ever could do.

Either I'm missing your point or you don't have one.

Edit: And ultimately and honestly: Humans do not fucking matter at all. We're insignificant and the problem of global warming is a problem solely to US. The "Save the planet! Stop global warming!" shit is ridiculous. As I've said there's nothing we can do to the planet short of nuking it to hell and back that the planet cant do to us 1,000,000,000 years sooner.

won't the increasing number of people in middle class (India and China) cause more problems as we can't provide all the food and other goods they want. Shouldn't we start learning to use resources better?

"save the planet" is not meant literally the planet

[Beckwin]

I think it's a minor tragedy that David Duchovny is becoming the symbol of the libertarian movement....


the truth is out there!

[BerenTebogo]

Don't get me started on that. I'm 100% behind China's 1 kid law. Idfc if they do make dead fetus soup with it.

Greater good >

[Beckwin]

yeah man we shouldn't bother trying to fix things now because in 100,000 years it'll probably be that bad naturally.

not like thousands of generations would enjoy that 100,000 years or anything.

[Gwynplaine]

won't the increasing number of people in middle class (India and China) cause more problems as we can't provide all the food and other goods they want.

The answer is in your question.

Ask yourself, what defines a "middle-class"? Then ask yourself why would other people even need to "provide" those middle-class people with food and goods? Then consider what conditions were necessary for those countries to recently create a middle-class in the first place.

The crock about widespread starvation and overpopulation is just pure distilled Malthusian b.s anyways. Supposed experts of one type or another have been making those claims for decades and it never comes true. In large part because of the reasons I hinted at above. But doesn't anyone care to talk about the actual subject the OP referred to?

[BerenTebogo]

yeah man we shouldn't bother trying to fix things now because in 100,000 years it'll probably be that bad naturally.

not like thousands of generations would enjoy that 100,000 years or anything.

This is a totally fucking retarded response and you've clearly skimmed everything that didn't lend itself to your clever retort.

Honestly people, you've got to step it up. Trolling quality is in the toilets lately.

[Beckwin]

ANTI-STATE ANTI-WAR ANTI-SCIENCE

it's all you need to start your own Waco

[Beckwin]

This is a totally fucking retarded response and you've clearly skimmed everything that didn't lend itself to your clever retort.

Honestly people, you've got to step it up. Trolling quality is in the toilets lately.

no, you bring up all your stupid fucking nihilistic misanthropy bullshit in every one of these topics as if it were relevant. hurr hurr ppl r dumb more need to die so we'd all be better off hurr hurr.

[BerenTebogo]

no, you bring up all your stupid fucking nihilistic misanthropy bullshit in every one of these topics as if it were relevant. hurr hurr ppl r dumb more need to die so we'd all be better off hurr hurr.

Yeah dude totally ignoring my countless comments about stabilizing the economy, resolving foreign and national issues that will inevitably lead to escalating scales of war which WILL have irreparable effects on the earth, and resolving economic issues so we can divert proper funds to the benefit of the common people.

Yeah, I'm a total nihilist. Seriously, every thread you touch turns to shit. Go away.

[Restrat]

Humans contribute less than half of one percent of all green house gases.

This is a misleading use of information. We contribute less than .5% of the total volume of green house gasses, as the biggest one is H2O, but the ones we do put out are many times more powerful than water at trapping escaping radiation.

[BerenTebogo]

This is a misleading use of information. We contribute less than .5% of the total volume of green house gasses, as the biggest one is H2O, but the ones we do put out are many times more powerful than water at trapping escaping radiation.

I will say also that our overbreeding of livestock has contributed a lot to the CO2 levels and I don't think those numbers are factored into the calculations, although I don't think it changes the end result really.

Just saying so people have all the facts.

[Jer]

This is a misleading use of information. We contribute less than .5% of the total volume of green house gasses, as the biggest one is H2O, but the ones we do put out are many times more powerful than water at trapping escaping radiation.

Ok, so let's discount water vapor. By volume humans will then contribute under 6% or so. Massive compared to the .3% or so from before, but still much less than a majority. You are also ignoring the fact that water vapor makes up a *huge* part of the greenhouse effect. Depending on which studies you read, it is responsible for anywhere from 60% up to 95% of the greenhouse effect on its own.

I still do think, as I've said every time this damnable argument comes up, that it is important we do take measures to find new, clean, abundant, etc power sources and ways to prevent pollution. It doesn't help a whole lot if instead of baking to death, you walk out into a poisonous cloud every day. Smog sucks.

[Jer]

To be clear, I just find the whole situation similar to the boy who cried wolf. Let's take Al Gore's movie production. Let's say that it drove a lot of people to care about the way we treat the environment because they didn't want to burn. Do you think those people would continue to take whatever measures they began once they found out the majority of what he presented was false, deliberate or otherwise?

That doesn't mean the measure they were taking should be stopped, they could very well be helpful. But they don't perceive it as so because it was based on a lie.

[Tristam]

This is a misleading use of information. We contribute less than .5% of the total volume of green house gasses, as the biggest one is H2O, but the ones we do put out are many times more powerful than water at trapping escaping radiation.

This is true. And the reasons behind it are important.

Part of the reason for the difference in power is because the absorption spectra of different gases are different, and the light reflected from the earth's surface is a broad spectrum of wavelengths. I say this a million times, but the result is that 1+1 =/= 2 for gases put into the atmosphere. Due to the huge amount of water in the atmosphere, a certain part of the spectrum of light that it is possible for the atmosphere to absorb is essentially capped. That means that water cannot easily absorb much more energy (the result being heat). CO2, on the other hand, not being terribly abundant, has a different absorbance spectrum, and so is absorbing energy at different wavelengths.

This is one of those funny things that leads people who google shit about climate to think they know it all. They simply go with what makes sense with their intuition. But if intuition was always right you wouldn't need professional scientists.

edit: differences in absorbance and emission spectra are part of the science behind how we can detect water on the moon, and distinguish it from other things. Strangely, noone is calling bullshit on the LCROSS measurements.

[Tristam]

Ok, so let's discount water vapor. By volume humans will then contribute under 6% or so. Massive compared to the .3% or so from before, but still much less than a majority. You are also ignoring the fact that water vapor makes up a *huge* part of the greenhouse effect. Depending on which studies you read, it is responsible for anywhere from 60% up to 95% of the greenhouse effect on its own.

I still do think, as I've said every time this damnable argument comes up, that it is important we do take measures to find new, clean, abundant, etc power sources and ways to prevent pollution. It doesn't help a whole lot if instead of baking to death, you walk out into a poisonous cloud every day. Smog sucks.

Majority doesn't matter, the relative amounts of energy at a particular wavelength and abundance of DIFFERENT gases does.

It's like limiting reagents that we all learned about in chemistry. If you want a reaction to proceed, it takes a certain amount of X, and a certain amount of Y. If you have a little Y and a lot of X, you're not gonna get much Z, and it doesn't matter how much more X you add. But if you add more Y, you get more Z. Get it?

edit: and yes, water is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, but it's the CHANGE that is being studied, and the reasons behind why the change is taking place are incredibly straightforward. Seriously, Svente Arrhenius predicted the temperature change as a function of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and he was correct..... a century ago. The science is done to the extent that science can answer a question. The field has moved on.

[Beckwin]

you imply that global warming is a conspiracy to distract from iraq, yet say I'm the one ruining threads? you make some decent comments otherwise (because spoilers: the general green/sustainability movement accepts the premise of agw) but your bullshit ruins it.

[Beckwin]

i mean really, iraq was the brainchild of US and GB neoconservatives, and while US mainstream liberals may have been tacitly compliant on a whole, European liberals were in stark opposition from the get go. This is relevant because green/sustainability is largely a left-aligned movement, which has been strongly opposed by neocons/conservatives while most strongly advocated by liberals, particularly European ones. The Bush admin notoriously opposed a variety of environmental/green initiatives- kyoto protocols, any sort of carbon tax/cap&trade, vehicle emission standards, etc.