1607 replies to this topic

[wjfox]

This thread is for general news and discussions on the environment, global warming, sustainability, energy and green issues.

Let's try to avoid trolling and personal insults. Thanks.

[wjfox]

I'd like to start by asking, what exactly is so bad or objectionable about wanting to protect the environment? A lot of people on here seem to feel it's all about wanting to impose big government, socialism, etc. But for me personally it's nothing to do with that. I simply want us to preserve a healthy planet, maintain our beautiful forests and landscapes, protect rare and exotic species from extinction, ensure that we have clean air and clean water, and sustainable resources for the long term. And of course, to invest in clean technologies and transition away from dirty, polluting fossil fuels which have a limited and finite supply.

I strongly believe we can have tough environmental regulations and a booming economy with millions of new jobs. Renewable energy is the future and that's what we should be investing in. The fossil fuel industry served a function in the past, but it's time to move on.

I just can't understand the brazen hostility and objection to the green movement. It's surely common sense that we should look after our world, and leave a healthy planet for future generations. I'm not necessarily talking about global warming here, but more the "environment" in general.

[jjf3]

TThereis nothing wrong with helping the environment AT ALL. As I've said b4 I fully support it. But a lot of the so-called solutions to the problem just doesn't work or is too impracticable at this point in time. The media appears to think that every bad storm might be from global warming. Government should take caution when giving other ppls money to these investments. Also the fear mongering is laughable at best it's no different than predicting the end of the world using any other theory. Also why do open minded people suddenly shut the door when other individual scientists want to study possible other causes of global warming? What harm will it do? Are you afrai that they will find something you missed? How many experiments have been shut down that wanted to study this? How much have the scientists that support it make over those that don't?

We just can't control the weather/climate sorry! Not yet anyway

[Roh234]

I'd like to start by asking, what exactly is so bad or objectionable about wanting to protect the environment? A lot of people on here seem to feel it's all about wanting to impose big government, socialism, etc. But for me personally it's nothing to do with that. I simply want us to preserve a healthy planet, maintain our beautiful forests and landscapes, protect rare and exotic species from extinction, ensure that we have clean air and clean water, and sustainable resources for the long term. And of course, to invest in clean technologies and transition away from dirty, polluting fossil fuels which have a limited and finite supply.

I strongly believe we can have tough environmental regulations and a booming economy with millions of new jobs. Renewable energy is the future and that's what we should be investing in. The fossil fuel industry served a function in the past, but it's time to move on.

I just can't understand the brazen hostility and objection to the green movement. It's surely common sense that we should look after our world, and leave a healthy planet for future generations. I'm not necessarily talking about global warming here, but more the "environment" in general.

Stop mercury spills.....Yes!
Stop poaching of endangered animals.....Yes
Stop acid rain....Yes
Have cleaner, fresher, pure air....Yes
Stop the destruction of the rainforsets....Yes
Stop killing and drilling for oil...Yes
Stop Whaling...Yes
Move on to renewables...Yes
Stop Overfishing...Yes


but...

Ram ships into illegal whalers....
Plant spikes in trees....
Vadalizing public and private property...
Over regulation (Products must be 99.9999% lead free instead of 99.9997%)...
Eco raps...
Population limits....


This is just the non-climate change part. If #2 and 3 and 6 were fixed the rest of the problems wouldn't be too much of an issue with the non climate change part of the green.

[Roh234]

A rebuttal from here... http://www.futuretim...y/page__st__140



Apperntly NY Times took down the article but here is on WUWT.

http://wattsupwithth...ing/#more-48151

[truthiness]

Stop mercury spills.....Yes!
Stop poaching of endangered animals.....Yes
Stop acid rain....Yes
Have cleaner, fresher, pure air....Yes
Stop the destruction of the rainforsets....Yes
Stop killing and drilling for oil...Yes
Stop Whaling...Yes
Move on to renewables...Yes
Stop Overfishing...Yes

So you're in favor of all of these, even though each are probably only attainable through increased government regulation or at least government subsidies (either way, increased taxes and a wider reach for government)?

The media appears to think that every bad storm might be from global warming.

True... I dislike this as well, but I feel compelled to point out that the right-wing media has a tendency to declare that every cold snap or blizzard is proof that global warming is a hoax.

How much have the scientists that support it make over those that don't?

I'd like to see those numbers as well. That could be telling... It might be tricky data to get though - to find an average salary of climate scientists that support ACG against climate scientists that are against it.. My guess is that the higher salaries will be on the side against global warming, simply because there is a limited supply of such scientists, and a high demand for them.

Also the fear mongering is laughable at best it's no different than predicting the end of the world using any other theory.

Well, I'm not so sure about that... the difference between predicting doom through anthropogenic climate change and predicting doom due to Rapture or the Mayan calendar or tea leaves is that ACG is supported through evidence. There is evidence that elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to warmer overall temperatures. There is no evidence that the world will end in the final battle at Ragnarok or that Skynet will awaken on April 15, 2014 at 1:43GMT. That's the difference.

[Zachemc2]

1934 was the hottest year in modern times (1815-present, not really any data before then), so where exactly is the climate change?

[Prolite]

You haven't noticed all the freakin' rain NY has been getting the past 2 years? It's unheard of. For NY, 2005 was the hottest year on record, and 2010 was the wettest year on record.

[Roh234]

You haven't noticed all the freakin' rain NY has been getting the past 2 years? It's unheard of. For NY, 2005 was the hottest year on record, and 2010 was the wettest year on record.

http://www.climatest...ork/nyprcp2.gif

[ExplorerAtHeart]

1934 was the hottest year in modern times (1815-present, not really any data before then), so where exactly is the climate change?

Source

[Roh234]

1934 was the hottest year in modern times (1815-present, not really any data before then), so where exactly is the climate change?

Source

http://articles.lati...ence/sci-temp15

1934 is the hottest US year. The point is still alive because the 'Inconvinent Truth' used US temperatures not global temperatures.

[Prolite]

Roh, we're never going to agree on this since my source and your source display different amounts. And I bet you there will be 1000 other sources that don't agree either. But trust me when I say that last year was the damned most wettest year for New York. ACTUALLY, I'm convinced that 2011, this year, will be the wettest. It rained almost every day the entire summer. It's still raining and it's almost October! Every freakin' day, it rains. It rained today. It rained last night. I can't even mow my damn lawn. The mosquitoes are SO BAD this year.

[wjfox]

From the NASA website -

http://climate.nasa.....cfm#globalTemp

2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, globally.





CO2 levels are growing exponentially -

http://climate.nasa....s/index.cfm#co2








We are clearly responsible for it -

http://www.skeptical...print.php?n=100





And there is mountains of evidence to show that the impacts will be devastating for life on Earth -

http://thinkprogress...arming-impacts/

There is a strong correlation between human industrial output and these multiple environmental impacts.
To deny evidence like this is just insanity, plain and simple - especially when there is such a strong consensus among researchers.

Why take the chance ??????

[Unrequited Lust]

100% consensus among all major national and international science academies is good enough for me.

Local temperatures have very little relevance to overall climate change btw.

[jjf3]

Well, I'm not so sure about that... the difference between predicting doom through anthropogenic climate change and predicting doom due to Rapture or the Mayan calendar or tea leaves is that ACG is supported through evidence.

I can give you plenty of evidence for the Mayan Calendar and the Rapture. Although it's not very "scientific." I can also give you evidence of other end of the world scenarios just like what people here are doing with Peak Oil and Global Warming. The only difference here is that the scientists are doing what they are told, and not studying other reasons why this could be happening. If there really was a consensus among the scientists i don't see why they wouldn't let people go off and do their own little experiments.

I don't know why peer reviewed research is seen as the norm now. It wasn't for most of history! Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Issac Newton were all laughed at for some of their insights and alternative thinking ideas.

There is evidence that elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to warmer overall temperatures.

There might be evidence of this, but that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

[jjf3]

You haven't noticed all the freakin' rain NY has been getting the past 2 years? It's unheard of. For NY, 2005 was the hottest year on record, and 2010 was the wettest year on record.

Really? Rain has nothing to do with Global Warming. It can defiantly be a natural cycle. We have wet and dry seasons. This statement is no better than the media claiming every hurricane is a result of Global Warming.

[Unrequited Lust]

Well, I'm not so sure about that... the difference between predicting doom through anthropogenic climate change and predicting doom due to Rapture or the Mayan calendar or tea leaves is that ACG is supported through evidence.

I can give you plenty of evidence for the Mayan Calendar and the Rapture. Although it's not very "scientific." I can also give you evidence of other end of the world scenarios just like what people here are doing with Peak Oil and Global Warming. The only difference here is that the scientists are doing what they are told, and not studying other reasons why this could be happening. If there really was a consensus among the scientists i don't see why they wouldn't let people go off and do their own little experiments.

I don't know why peer reviewed research is seen as the norm now. It wasn't for most of history! Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Issac Newton were all laughed at for some of their insights and alternative thinking ideas.

There is evidence that elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to warmer overall temperatures.

There might be evidence of this, but that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the supposed Mayan notion that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012. You're mixing up fantasy and reality again jjf3. Facts and opinions are completely different things.

If you think there's as much evidence supporting climate change as there is supporting a religion that's been dead for hundreds of years, you're already hopeless.

Do you honestly not trust peer review? Then you're a fucking idiot. Sorry for the ad hominem, but that's true. Every piece of technology you use is based off of peer review. All of it. All of your examples are utterly stupid because they either underwent peer review or they didn't even invent anything or it doesn't apply to them. Because you probably don't get it, I'll spell it out for you:

Steve Jobs - CEO of Apple. Everything Apple does is based off of computer science that was peer reviewed.
Edison - Definitely peer reviewed.
Mendel - Definitely peer reviewed.
da Vince - Didn't actually invent anything. Came up with conceptual models for modern inventions. If his thoughts actually underwent peer review, then they would be shown to be incorrect. None of his machines would've worked.
Newton - Definitely peer reviewed. If you're counting the mathematics, then yeah, also peer reviewed.

How do you think science works? Some just comes up with something and then the whole community accepts it without even trying to verify it? I reiterate, you're a fucking idiot.

And one last thing, I'm going to keep saying this until you get it: Religion has its conclusions WITHOUT any proof to back it up. It is human speculation. Science gathers proof AND THEN AFTERWARD makes the conclusion based on reality.

jjf3, what psychological phenomena prevents you from understanding this last point? It is absolutely crucial that you understand that there is an objective reality and the best way to learn about it is through the scientific method, NOT whatever interests you or what you would like it to be.

[Time_Traveller]

Negative effects of climate change could cost Canada the equivalent of 1% of its GDP by 2050 and 2.5% by 2075, a government-backed report has said.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-15119210

I know that Canada can get Climate Change but the Negative Effects with this and the Economy.

(Move to right Section if not in right one).

[wjfox]

Really? Rain has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Global warming = more heat = more melting of ice = more water evaporating = more rain in the system.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

There might be evidence of this

There is overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence for this. As a simple example, just look at Venus.

that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

Nobody is saying we're all going to die in 20 years. Where did you read that?

[Craven]

Also the fear mongering is laughable at best it's no different than predicting the end of the world using any other theory.

Like invisible pink unicorn theory is no diffrent from well examined and supported with evidence global warming... Yeah. Awesome logic.

Also why do open minded people suddenly shut the door when other individual scientists want to study possible other causes of global warming? (...)

They don't It's just that when they debunk those "possible other causes" those "open minded" ones don't listen.

Local temperatures have very little relevance to overall climate change btw.

Same goes for single year extremes. Every data has some noise so single warmer or colder year means nothing.

(...) Then you're a fucking idiot.
(...) I reiterate, you're a fucking idiot.

Can admin or moderator react? There's no justification for that.