In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2000
Online now 2035 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm pretty stoked about tropical climates in December tbh.
Ah, fantasy land. Takes me back.
Not once did I say I had the answers. Being a man of science as you say, I don't understand how you can refute the evidence at hand that atmospheric CO2 is a huge problem for the continuation of the species. The studies are there, and you can replicate them if you debate the science.
Ignoring or denying the problem is resistance to the development of an answer.
World is gonna end in December anyway.
I can't argue with this. Nothing like 77 degree weather in March.
February 29th wasn't on the Mayan calendar. Technically the end of their calendar has already passed.
So what do we do? I'm cool with this if our liberal friends are. We can force caps on pollution, we can force companies to invest in better stacks, etc. We can pretty much revamp the whole industrial complex but it's going to come at a MAJOR cost to the consumer. I mean major. So I propose our Government pass a law staring that no individuals cost will go up and the companies must absorb all cost in this overhaul. What the government would then do is collect 0 taxes in these companies for 10-15 years. Let them operate tax free so they can absorb these costs and not have to pass those costs to us. That would be a giant headstart.
Id be all for it
You see, you tried to call me out and now you're agreeing with me. I all about helping the environment. I'm also about my costs not going up, and the companies not eating costs from Government regulation.
This post was edited by DrStach_ 2 years ago
I'm of the opinion that much more powerful forces we have a much more limited understanding of and which are much less in our control are too easily written off or discredited. I'm sorry if lifelong scientists disagree but I can't make myself believe an increase in a naturally occurring gas, marginally caused by human action, has a much more adverse effect on global climate than all of the interactive forces within our ecosystem and universe.
I'm also kind of a naturalist thanks to my grandfather. A part native American, WWII drill sergeant who knew more about nature than anyone I've ever met, formal education or not. The Earth "fixes" itself as it has for billions of years, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.
Get ready for this thread to go nuclear, it happens every time haha.
"White man you just starting to get the blues" - Rags and Bones, Nomeansno
I mostly agree with you, but I think the way the earth fixes itself wouldn't be conducive to human life.
I don't know about the rest of you but I for one enjoy a warmer climate. Living here in Michigan you get some hella cold winters and this one was great. I've been in shorts in a T-shirt for the better part of 2 weeks. My only complaint is that this didn't happen sooner. More warmth sooner!
I apologize. I just can't stand people that don't give a damn about the planet they live on. I'm all for sacrifice to get it done. Hell I think environmentally first but im pretty economically conservative, so if the government has to foot the bill without raising taxes on anyone I'm all for it. There are plenty of black holes to fill that will pay for it. I also believe that it will boost our economy in the future. The environment is the only place I want government regulation.
Bingo! The earth tends to fix itself in abrupt shifts from one equilibrium point to another that may not be anything alike. Peter Ward a paleontologist at the University of Washington had done a lot of work on some of the past mass extinctions, K-T, Permian, etc and hypothesizes that abrupt shifts in climate or other earth systems was the major case fueled by methane beds in the arctic and on the seafloor releasing a lot of their gas. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 but is way more dangerous on a degree per ppm level. Methane roughly 40 years in the atmosphere, CO2 about 100, but Methane is multiple times more intense (can't remember the exact number).
Then you and I agree more than you know.
The problem compounds when trapped CO2 heats up that methane. Crazy stuff.
Ya, acceleration in complex systems, tipping points and all that jazz. That's what worries scientists the most.
I've said numerous times it's not worth fixing, and advances in technology will eventually solve the issue.
I just think it's extremely ignorant to think that global warming isn't affected by humans.
Scientific certainty is impossible when dealing with open, complex systems. The reason scientists can be very accurate in experiments is because of their ability to control all the parameters of the experiment. Can't do that with "Earth's" systems, which are open and can not be "closed". Hence accuracy and certainty in the absolute senses of the words are more scientific ideals then anything else in this case.
But I agree with you that claims about climatic earthquakes and using single events to extrapolate to average global warming as causation are counterproductive no matter what side of the argument you are on.
This post was edited by OCanada 2 years ago
I don't think you're ignorant for having an opposing viewpoint.
I would think you were slightly less intelligent if you believe you're intellectually superior to skeptics while using the same consumer items, but it's okay because you recycle cans and get paper bags at the grocery store instead of plastic when you buy food from all over the country/world.
I see what your saying and agree just because they are on the "consensus" side doesn't make them infallible as scientists and human beings. Secondly, that's the problem with the mix up between global warming and climate change. As far as I know "average global" temperatures have been steadily increasing, even controlling for natural climate variability. Localized effects are context-specific, reducing down to the regional level areas could get hotter/drier, hotter/wetter, colder/drier, colder/wetter. It really comes down to our ability to adapt fast enough to what the rising average will do to earth's systems i.e. water/oceans, agricultural, etc. with a population containing roughly 9 billion people in 40 years. I'm not a climate scientist so I'm just going off the best of my own knowledge so far.
Obviously be careful of extremes when give probable ranges to begin with. The talk of a rise of 5-6 degrees by 2100 is statistically possible, but has a low probability. Moderate estimates of say 3 degrees as a mean are much more statistically probable based on current development paths are projections. But 3 degrees to us is different than 3 degrees as a global average on the way in which the earth's systems function. Does that mean its time for catastrophic alarmism, of course not but the warming of the poles and permafrost areas are worrisome, again because of what can happen when it gets warm enough to start releasing significant amounts of methane gas, from the permafrost/undersea vents.
At the end of the day is the idea of "uncertainty". In scientific modelling and projections, in how the complex systems of earth will react to certain conditions, we just "can't" know in some ways and that's what's frustrating to a society who was raised on the concept of the certainty of science. Part of the paradox is in a society increasing reliant on the trust of experts to make sure things function properly (expert systems), people are losing trust in government officials, scientists, etc. as reliable sources of truth. Corruption doesn't help. And I was doing 5 straight hours of paper writing at school so I am finished writing, and hopefully its all coherent...I'm just trying to figure it out as much as the next guy, and make no claims to what I see being the certain truth haha.
Okay, so how many of you have appeared on Doomsday Preppers? Be honest
There had never been any period in the earths history that the climate wasn't in a state change. It's what the earth does. Frekkin get a clue.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports