What's the matter, don't like the taste of your own medicine?
Too bad
Turnabout is fair-play
Remember the TOU, butt-nut
she said thank you... what more do you want?
I know the TOU, i did nothing close to violating it.
What can we do about Climate Change?
- Thread starter MarquisBlack
- Start date
- Status
she said thank you... what more do you want?
I know the TOU, i did nothing close to violating it.
...Grat3fulh3ad said:
"they will have me right there between Richard Grasso and Horace Greeley..an intellectual sandwich of sorts..."
That's awfully childish, hoosier.
but I expect nothing less.
besides that, If you'd payed any attention... I'm between Horace Greeley and Kendal Hailey.
but I expect nothing less.
besides that, If you'd payed any attention... I'm between Horace Greeley and Kendal Hailey.
Just like I said, never wrong. Even when blatantly incorrect. Typical.
And I expected every bit as much.
lol...once again one would have to suspend the concept of reality to buy into your logic.
And obviously once again I am correct, and you are floundering in fail land.
I would have thought fulhead a much more appropriate name.
O
OrganicOzarks
Was my post not clear about solving the "global warming" problem. Why is this thread still open?
once again asshattery rears its head (or heads its rear)
and once again hoosier fails to have relevance...
What about laying off the ad hominem ad infinitum and try supporting your asinine assertions for once?
I googled them, per your lazy suggestion, and found out you're full of shit.
You must have keyboard diarrhea because you're spewing out all kinds of shit that has no solid substance.
Last edited:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ter-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
I hope the BP crisis is a catalyst for change of human oil dependency.
I hope the BP crisis is a catalyst for change of human oil dependency.
The statement released by the Australian Academy of Science is a first for the organisation and details the key evidence identified globally by climate scientists.
It says carbon emissions need to be cut by more than half by 2050 if there is to be a good chance of keeping temperature rises to less than two degrees.
It also says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
Kurt Lambeck from the Australian National University says current misinformation is confusing the public debate and the warnings need to be identified.
"It's because we've been concerned about the nature of the climate change debate in recent times," he said.
"We see the quality of the science improving with time but the debate seems to be degenerating in some ways."
Professor Lambeck says one of the reasons behind the degeneration is that the science is very complex.
"Climate science is really at the sort of intersection of a whole lot of basic science areas," he said.
"Now a lot of people understand elements of those basic sciences but they don't understand the complexities that occur when you try to put it all together.
"People get confused over those minor, what are essentially secondary issues and in that process the whole level of the debate degenerates."
Professor Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change.
"I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing," he said.
"Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that, you know, action needed to be taken.
"But we've lost that consensus between the two parties."
'Severe' impact
Professor Lambeck says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by "about a degree" over the last century.
"A degree doesn't sound like very much but it appears that its impact on regional climate can be quite severe," he said.
"Now when I say one degree, that is the global average surface temperatures.
"There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.
"Whether that's part of a long term trend or whether that's part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that's something that we don't know yet because our records are too short."
Scientific questions
The statement makes the point that no scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain.
But Professor Lambeck does not think that leaves the conclusions open to sceptics and critics.
"The underpinning parts - the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in global temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere - these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information," he said.
"Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.
"We're not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that into our forecast.
"But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.
"They're extremely unlikely to affect the change in direction of what we are observing."
The Greens say the report shows the major parties need to do more to deal with the threat.
Greens Senator Christine Milne says the big parties are acting as if climate change is not real.
"Both parties are trying to ignore climate change and this is big turnaround from 2007 when the Labor Party told Australians that it was a great moral imperative and they would act on it," she said.
"Part of the reason for that is the sceptics campaign that has been aided and abetted by Tony Abbott and the Coalition."
It says carbon emissions need to be cut by more than half by 2050 if there is to be a good chance of keeping temperature rises to less than two degrees.
It also says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
Kurt Lambeck from the Australian National University says current misinformation is confusing the public debate and the warnings need to be identified.
"It's because we've been concerned about the nature of the climate change debate in recent times," he said.
"We see the quality of the science improving with time but the debate seems to be degenerating in some ways."
Professor Lambeck says one of the reasons behind the degeneration is that the science is very complex.
"Climate science is really at the sort of intersection of a whole lot of basic science areas," he said.
"Now a lot of people understand elements of those basic sciences but they don't understand the complexities that occur when you try to put it all together.
"People get confused over those minor, what are essentially secondary issues and in that process the whole level of the debate degenerates."
Professor Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change.
"I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing," he said.
"Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that, you know, action needed to be taken.
"But we've lost that consensus between the two parties."
'Severe' impact
Professor Lambeck says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by "about a degree" over the last century.
"A degree doesn't sound like very much but it appears that its impact on regional climate can be quite severe," he said.
"Now when I say one degree, that is the global average surface temperatures.
"There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.
"Whether that's part of a long term trend or whether that's part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that's something that we don't know yet because our records are too short."
Scientific questions
The statement makes the point that no scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain.
But Professor Lambeck does not think that leaves the conclusions open to sceptics and critics.
"The underpinning parts - the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in global temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere - these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information," he said.
"Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.
"We're not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that into our forecast.
"But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.
"They're extremely unlikely to affect the change in direction of what we are observing."
The Greens say the report shows the major parties need to do more to deal with the threat.
Greens Senator Christine Milne says the big parties are acting as if climate change is not real.
"Both parties are trying to ignore climate change and this is big turnaround from 2007 when the Labor Party told Australians that it was a great moral imperative and they would act on it," she said.
"Part of the reason for that is the sceptics campaign that has been aided and abetted by Tony Abbott and the Coalition."
While the U.S. remains embroiled in a mind-boggling feud over whether climate change is real, Russia has warmed up to the scientific evidence. “Everyone is talking about climate change now,” President Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Russian Security Council this month. “Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.”
Russia’s leaders have usually played the role of obstructionists in global talks about climate change because they thought that combatting it would harm their economic growth (where have we heard that before?) and because they believed that they would benefit from a warming planet. The vast stretch of frozen-over Siberia, they believed, would turn into a pleasant region of moderate temperature, ripe for agriculture and development.
But this summer changed their minds. The costs of climate change have been horrendous.
“There is no question that we need to get ahead of climate change,” said Vladimir Slivyak, a co-chair of Ecodefense, a grassroots Russian environmental group. “This is a wake-up call.” Meanwhile, an average of 700 people are dying per day in Moscow, double the average rate.
Russia’s leaders have usually played the role of obstructionists in global talks about climate change because they thought that combatting it would harm their economic growth (where have we heard that before?) and because they believed that they would benefit from a warming planet. The vast stretch of frozen-over Siberia, they believed, would turn into a pleasant region of moderate temperature, ripe for agriculture and development.
But this summer changed their minds. The costs of climate change have been horrendous.
“There is no question that we need to get ahead of climate change,” said Vladimir Slivyak, a co-chair of Ecodefense, a grassroots Russian environmental group. “This is a wake-up call.” Meanwhile, an average of 700 people are dying per day in Moscow, double the average rate.
Ah, but the intellectually superior Headmonster will tell us that these weather situations are irrefutably indicative of AGW. Too smart by half.
See, the Russians are learning how to use local weather situations as ammo for the war on their citizens minds.
Now, how is it the Russians know so much about what their recent heat wave tells us? Are they too smarter than the scientists, like Head is? No...they have just been poisoned from the same chalice as the Head has been.
.
What part of "one has to be an idiot to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good" and "the scientific proof of AGW is no house of cards and cannot be toppled by nitpicking individual cards, but rather like a jigsaw puzzle with the many pieces fitting together to form the big picture and the picture" do you not understand?
lmao at your imagining that I consider "weather events which are consistent with climate change" as irrefutable proof... you haven't been keeping up at all have ya?
I've made my position on the weather very clear, and have been completely consistent.
Weather is not climate, but climate models indicate that the warming will bring about an increase in extreme weather events. The russians are bright enough to stop denying the obvious.
the russians have done a complete 180.
you will too, if you live long enough.
lol@persistant denialism
when you gonna back up your bullshit, boy? I'm still waiting.
lmao at your imagining that I consider "weather events which are consistent with climate change" as irrefutable proof... you haven't been keeping up at all have ya?
I've made my position on the weather very clear, and have been completely consistent.
Weather is not climate, but climate models indicate that the warming will bring about an increase in extreme weather events. The russians are bright enough to stop denying the obvious.
the russians have done a complete 180.
you will too, if you live long enough.
lol@persistant denialism
when you gonna back up your bullshit, boy? I'm still waiting.
S
Sir_Nugget
nvm, we are screwed
the only thing electricity can't beat gas at is pushing a boat, electric boats sooo slow
what i don't get is... these idiots who like to race each other on the highway, brag about their horsepower, like to sniff gas, and never want to get rid of their combustion engines (no matter how busted their ride is)... we get off on fucking each other over..
the only thing electricity can't beat gas at is pushing a boat, electric boats sooo slow
what i don't get is... these idiots who like to race each other on the highway, brag about their horsepower, like to sniff gas, and never want to get rid of their combustion engines (no matter how busted their ride is)... we get off on fucking each other over..
Nor'Easter
Member
wow, at least you were trying to debate rather than calling everyone who disagrees with you goons! There was actually a little bit of sense in there! But then all your posts after that reverted to the same old verbal diarrhea you have been spewing for months (maybe years) now! You are right, most people don't understand science, but to those willing to open their minds and learn, it is not that hard to grasp the basic concepts and see the truth based on the evidence presented. It is the closed-minded that cannot or will not see the light even though it is blaring in their face!
I am bitter because of the existence of stupid fucks in our Nation, such as yourself.
there goes that "pot calling the kettle" disease..... again....
Hazelnuts
Member
In my opinion, the most important thing to do is to stop deforestation of the tropic rainforests (contrary to popular belief, most of that isn't done by "big evil corporations" but by poor people who burn down the forest to plant some crops, so those people need to be given another means of survival, whatever that may be) and force sustainable energy sources such as fusion power (once that hits the fan, we will never again have energy problems) and solar power. With fusion power and appropriate means to store and transport the energy produced by fusion power plants, we won't need fossil fuels anymore, not for anything. Even polymers could be produced from CO2 and other organic compounds with those amounts of energy. The only problem remaining then would be long-distance travel, but I guess subterranean vacuum tunnel train lines could solve that (speeds of up to 3000 mph would be possible with those technologies, since there won't be any air in the way of the trains) and they could be run with electricity. Oh, and let's not forget fuel cell driven cars, those are almost ready for production and if the hydrogen is produced with "clean" electricity, they're true 0-emission vehicles.
- Status
