Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?

[canndo]

Here we go again with the global warming causes cooling...again.

And here again is a lack of understanding of complex systems. The more energetic a complex system the more likely are complex results. The earth isn't a refirgerator or an oven. Next time you look at a pan of boiling water examine the currents in that water, you might learn something.

 

[canndo]

Wrong. No and no. Greenhouse Effect cannot be even modeled on a planetary scale. We ice up in the computer models. And we can see evidence that we have Iced up completely at least one time before. The age of the hot damp climate or whatever was when the continents were together. Pangea or some such. The conditions are no longer present, even if that was caused by "gasses" in the atmosphere. All of Science knows this. All of Popular Science is for pulling in Money.

That is all very inconvenient, indeed. And to me, it makes, Greenhouse Effect the false god, of the Climate Cry Babies.

Let me see if we have this right. Unless we are 100 percent certain, unless all data points in the same direction, unless all models are perfect, there can't be such a thing as global warming. So you want 100 percent certainty. I want that with our national debt. Unless all economic models are absolutely correct and all datum is aligned, every economist is in total agreement, I don't think we should curb our national spending, not even a little.

 

[Doer]

And you see that areas like Greenland can get a warm spot. And check on Greenland....gold and other untapped wealth is now available. We have always liked those crazy Glanders, so good for them. And this is not a hurricane. I'm not trying to lecture you and you know how to tune me out, iac.

For the rest of you, this lecture is about the powerful tans-global winds that flow endlessly above 60 degrees in latitude. There is nothing to impede them. They flow over ocean surface around the South Pole and create giant waves, that travel around without hitting land, ever.

In the north it is still flat, all around but no energy can go into waves. It is frozen tundra and ice. Stacks of winds. We see the Jet Stream. Toward the pole is another, lower altitude wind, and in the center circling the pole, is a wind that is very cold, the Polar Vortex. It is always there. And this one will reestablish. It is a result of all the winds circling the world.

It not like it just formed or it didn't or it is just a hoax. It is part of the Wind Pattern. That inner cold wind warms slightly (why?) and inflates just enough that it trips and comes apart. It is cold and dense so it sags down. It just sloshed under the other patterns.

Why? Warming? OK, we said that. But what warming? How about solar energy begin transmitted down the magnetic fields? I understand the Northern Lights are visible far south this year.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Let me see if we have this right. Unless we are 100 percent certain, unless all data points in the same direction, unless all models are perfect, there can't be such a thing as global warming. So you want 100 percent certainty. I want that with our national debt. Unless all economic models are absolutely correct and all datum is aligned, every economist is in total agreement, I don't think we should curb our national spending, not even a little.

Apples to oranges but it's a fair point.

The difference being, 100% agreement that there is indeed a national debt. The exact amount can be argued, but in the vicinity of 17 trillion. It is also stipulated that it's the highest our country has ever accumulated. Arguments can be made as to the consequences and as a result, what actually needs to be done about it.

As to MMGW, if the conclusion is we don't want global warming (I remain unconvinced), then we can address the cause. If there are solutions that don't cripple people and industries financially, don't demand redistribution of wealth, don't create a false scarcity of fuel/energy and don't require major changes to our lifestyles, then the amount of certainty needed is lessened. If any of those are the solutions determined to be necessary, then Fuckin' A right it needs to be 100%. The Eco-loons made their bed with past atrocities, too bad if the burden of proof is on them before we go all in this time.

So far, their track record is absolute shite.

 

[canndo]

Apples to oranges but it's a fair point.

The difference being, 100% agreement that there is indeed a national debt. The exact amount can be argued, but in the vicinity of 17 trillion. It is also stipulated that it's the highest our country has ever accumulated. Arguments can be made as to the consequences and as a result, what actually needs to be done about it.

As to MMGW, if the conclusion is we don't want global warming (I remain unconvinced), then we can address the cause. If there are solutions that don't cripple people and industries financially, don't demand redistribution of wealth, don't create a false scarcity of fuel/energy and don't require major changes to our lifestyles, then the amount of certainty needed is lessened. If any of those are the solutions determined to be necessary, then Fuckin' A right it needs to be 100%. The Eco-loons made their bed with past atrocities, too bad if the burden of proof is on them before we go all in this time.

So far, their track record is absolute shite.

Apples to oranges not withdstanding, the analogy remains. Yes, we agree that there is a national debt, but the point here is that indeed, the amount is argued. We dan say that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is the higest on record - what that means is subject to debate, just as the effect of the size of our debt is subjedt to debate. To compare the issues, why should we do ANYTHING about the debt, debt is the natural order of large scale economics of countries, debts go up, debts go down. Should we do anything about it? will it go down as that natural order may indicates? Will it actually be a danger to our country? who can say? we can only speculate, just as we speculate on the effects of global warming. The solution to our national debt may well cripple people and industry. Being that we will have to raise taxes, reduce expenditures or some other activity that will undboubtedly have an effect upon our economy and way of life, how is the argument different? So, the burden of proof that the national debt is indeed a problem will also have to be 100 percent proven as a problem. The burden of proof in this case goes to the financial doomsday folk. Why propose we go all in when it comes to that debt when you are not willing to do the same with global warming (which btw, should it come to reality will add to that same national debt at the very least).

 

[ChesusRice]

Apples to oranges but it's a fair point.
trillion. It is also stipulated that it's the highest our country has ever accumulated.

is it the highest ratio of debt to GDP?
Is the deficit going down?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Apples to oranges not withdstanding, the analogy remains. Yes, we agree that there is a national debt, but the point here is that indeed, the amount is argued. We dan say that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is the higest on record - what that means is subject to debate, just as the effect of the size of our debt is subjedt to debate. To compare the issues, why should we do ANYTHING about the debt, debt is the natural order of large scale economics of countries, debts go up, debts go down. Should we do anything about it? will it go down as that natural order may indicates? Will it actually be a danger to our country? who can say? we can only speculate, just as we speculate on the effects of global warming. The solution to our national debt may well cripple people and industry. Being that we will have to raise taxes, reduce expenditures or some other activity that will undboubtedly have an effect upon our economy and way of life, how is the argument different? So, the burden of proof that the national debt is indeed a problem will also have to be 100 percent proven as a problem. The burden of proof in this case goes to the financial doomsday folk. Why propose we go all in when it comes to that debt when you are not willing to do the same with global warming (which btw, should it come to reality will add to that same national debt at the very least).

My name is MuyLocoNC and I approve this message. I think the burden of proof does lie with those who seek to risk the financial well being of fellow citizens. My sig would be hypocritical if I asserted otherwise.

The difference being that the debt argument may end up coming down to simple math. If interest rates rise, as they always have, the consequences of the debt may become apparent at a frightening pace. No 100 year incubation period required to see the results.

 

[ChesusRice]

My name is MuyLocoNC and I approve this message. I think the burden of proof does lie with those who seek to risk the financial well being of fellow citizens. My sig would be hypocritical if I asserted otherwise.

The difference being that the debt argument may end up coming down to simple math. If interest rates rise, as they always have, the consequences of the debt may become apparent at a frightening pace. No 100 year incubation period required to see the results.

Actually your assertion is that the brunt of costs for Global warming shouldn't affect any of the energy producers but the costs should be passed down to the people who live in the areas global warming affects

 

[see4]

The flywheels powering the machines offset the warming.

My erection offsets the flywheels, you still need to check that shit.

 

[heckler73]

My erection offsets the flywheels, you still need to check that shit.

Are you altering electromagnetic fields (eRectomagnetic?) with your bulbous protuberance?

 

[beenthere]

And here again is a lack of understanding of complex systems. The more energetic a complex system the more likely are complex results. The earth isn't a refirgerator or an oven. Next time you look at a pan of boiling water examine the currents in that water, you might learn something.

Science is definitely not my forte (that means I admit it) but I have a couple of simple questions about climate change for you.

Scientists claim that the earth has had about five or six major ice ages, obviously long before man's industrial revolution.

My question is, what caused the earth to drop in temperature so much, and what caused it to warm back up?

 

[canndo]

Science is definitely not my forte (that means I admit it) but I have a couple of simple questions about climate change for you.

Scientists claim that the earth has had about five or six major ice ages, obviously long before man's industrial revolution.

My question is, what caused the earth to drop in temperature so much, and what caused it to warm back up?

If science is not your forte, then how can you reasonably argue against global warming, given that you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend it? Yes there have been a number of cooling periods - any number of causes from change in albedo to differences in the output of the sun. Just because something is natural does not mean that we cannot be the cause - THIS time. The earth sequestered carbon at a very low rate for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that our putting all that carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time won't do anything at all? really?

We have the ability to alter our surroundings, there are far too many examples to claim otherwise.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

If science is not your forte, then how can you reasonably argue against global warming, given that you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend it? Yes there have been a number of cooling periods - any number of causes from change in albedo to differences in the output of the sun. Just because something is natural does not mean that we cannot be the cause - THIS time. The earth sequestered carbon at a very low rate for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that our putting all that carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time won't do anything at all? really?

We have the ability to alter our surroundings, there are far too many examples to claim otherwise.

Who are you to tell that rhetoric, when bombs are what give us all a luxurious way of life. Yet, my can of hairspray is bad?

 

[NLXSK1]

If science is not your forte, then how can you reasonably argue against global warming, given that you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend it? Yes there have been a number of cooling periods - any number of causes from change in albedo to differences in the output of the sun. Just because something is natural does not mean that we cannot be the cause - THIS time. The earth sequestered carbon at a very low rate for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that our putting all that carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time won't do anything at all? really?

We have the ability to alter our surroundings, there are far too many examples to claim otherwise.

We are carbon based life forms. Carbon is one of the basic building blocks of life. It is one of the most plentiful materials on the planet. Carbon Dioxide is one of the gasses that is recycled by plant and animal life in a constant circle.

Yes, I honestly believe that since there appears to be no correlation to the CO2 levels and global warming that it will not have any significant effect on the weather.

 

[twostrokenut]

We are carbon based life forms. Carbon is one of the basic building blocks of life. It is one of the most plentiful materials on the planet. Carbon Dioxide is one of the gasses that is recycled by plant and animal life in a constant circle.

Yes, I honestly believe that since there appears to be no correlation to the CO2 levels and global warming that it will not have any significant effect on the weather.

Yep. Silicon being the most abundant Ireckon. Seems everyone says just carbon is the pollutant these days.....sounds better than CO2 in arguments since the true nature of the argument is exposed when you want to convince people that breathing should be regulated.

 

[Doer]

If science is not your forte, then how can you reasonably argue against global warming, given that you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend it? Yes there have been a number of cooling periods - any number of causes from change in albedo to differences in the output of the sun. Just because something is natural does not mean that we cannot be the cause - THIS time. The earth sequestered carbon at a very low rate for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that our putting all that carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time won't do anything at all? really?

We have the ability to alter our surroundings, there are far too many examples to claim otherwise.

That is correct. For you to poise rhetorical questions like this, reminds of religion. "Would not a Just God....?" There are at least 4 assumptions in those 5 words.

These obsessed ideas are to push the concept that we broke it. The Big assumption that lead to the DOOM EGO.

We can fix it? We can mess it up much more than you claim we've done already. We can really mess this place up with nukes. Nuke plants and nuke bombs are the same thing. You need one to make the other.

To me this is where it all breaks down. If we were so stupid to break it without knowing, we are certainly too stupid to try to fix. We do not even understand if it is broken. You claim it is. The rest of science just moves on with more science. Science has no conclusion.
Most of the people here, on RIU will only cite the conflicting data for North America and Central Europe and stupidly call that runaway AGW.

It is like chimps running a nuke plant. But that is what you chimps want to do. Run the Earth with 100,000 year lasting poisons. How is that better than Oil???? We know that is deadly stuff. And we dig it up, and make it more deadly, just like you say for oil...,. But, oil is nothing.

So those that don't see Nuke Plants are the end game horror here, are scary, to me.

That is what I am afraid of. You. Not the Climate Change. I fear the monkeys of religion.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Actually your assertion is that the brunt of costs for Global warming shouldn't affect any of the energy producers but the costs should be passed down to the people who live in the areas global warming affects

No, that was clearly not my assertion. We were discussing the level of certainty necessary for solutions that don't tax or fine the US citizens and industries and the level necessary for for solutions that do. In your example, you need 100% proof that GW is SOLELY man's fault, 100% proof that the problems those areas are having are due SOLELY to GW, 100% proof of the exact amount it is costing those poor souls and finally, 100% proof of the exact percentage that the USA contributes to GW. Let me know when they have all that together and I'll contribute my share of the annual amount, divided by 318,000,000. What's that, about $7? Should only cost you about three times that to collect the evidence.

The burden of proof lies with the party that wants to dip its fingers in the pocketbook of the second party.

 

[beenthere]

If science is not your forte, then how can you reasonably argue against global warming, given that you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend it?

Actually canndo, for the same reason you argue in defense of it.

Yes there have been a number of cooling periods - any number of causes from change in albedo to differences in the output of the sun. Just because something is natural does not mean that we cannot be the cause - THIS time.
The earth sequestered carbon at a very low rate for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that our putting all that carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time won't do anything at all? really?

We have the ability to alter our surroundings, there are far too many examples to claim otherwise.

That answer sure didn't sound very scientific, why not be honest and say you don't know?

 

[see4]

We are carbon based life forms. Carbon is one of the basic building blocks of life. It is one of the most plentiful materials on the planet. Carbon Dioxide is one of the gasses that is recycled by plant and animal life in a constant circle.

Yes, I honestly believe that since there appears to be no correlation to the CO2 levels and global warming that it will not have any significant effect on the weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

[canndo]

That is correct. For you to poise rhetorical questions like this, reminds of religion. "Would not a Just God....?" There are at least 4 assumptions in those 5 words.

These obsessed ideas are to push the concept that we broke it. The Big assumption that lead to the DOOM EGO.

We can fix it? We can mess it up much more than you claim we've done already. We can really mess this place up with nukes. Nuke plants and nuke bombs are the same thing. You need one to make the other.

To me this is where it all breaks down. If we were so stupid to break it without knowing, we are certainly too stupid to try to fix. We do not even understand if it is broken. You claim it is. The rest of science just moves on with more science. Science has no conclusion.
Most of the people here, on RIU will only cite the conflicting data for North America and Central Europe and stupidly call that runaway AGW.

It is like chimps running a nuke plant. But that is what you chimps want to do. Run the Earth with 100,000 year lasting poisons. How is that better than Oil???? We know that is deadly stuff. And we dig it up, and make it more deadly, just like you say for oil...,. But, oil is nothing.

So those that don't see Nuke Plants are the end game horror here, are scary, to me.

That is what I am afraid of. You. Not the Climate Change. I fear the monkeys of religion.

No. In this case, if we know that "we broke it" by putting ancient carbon into a present day atmosphere - all at once, then in order to "fix" it, all we have to do is less of what we were doing.

There is a set amount of carbon in the world - yep - pretty much what we had is what we have, no more, no less. Nature put a hell of a lot of it in the ground, took it right out of the atmosphere and stuck it under the earth. Now we are doing something that is unparalleled in nature - we are putting it all back in the atmosphere at once. We are doing it so quickly that we can measure it. There is no religion here. The religion you speak of is induced doubt - "well the scientists really don't know any more than any one else". It was not until 1996 that a direct causality between cigarette smoking and cancer was found. Was cancer and smoking a religion before then?