turtlespeed 212 #1 January 26, 2011 . . . It looks like a Snow-icane is going to hit the north east US this evening. Make sure we don't use any fossil fuels to keep warm, it just compounds the problem.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 26, 2011 You just don't get the whole "climate change" thing do you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #3 January 26, 2011 "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998! 2005! 2010!" Well, maybe third time's a charm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #4 January 26, 2011 Quote You just don't get the whole "climate change" thing do you Yes - I do - it is climate change until it doesn't fit the climate change parameters, then it is weather.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,929 #5 January 26, 2011 Quote Quote You just don't get the whole "climate change" thing do you Yes - I do - it is climate change until it doesn't fit the climate change parameters, then it is weather. You are not entitled to redefine the English language to suit your prejudices. nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #6 January 26, 2011 Quote Quote You just don't get the whole "climate change" thing do you Yes - I do - it is climate change until it doesn't fit the climate change parameters, then it is weather. Climate change can be good, we need to embrace global warming...after all there are billions of dollars at stake. You need to get in on the action before its to late. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #7 January 26, 2011 >Climate change can be good, we need to embrace global warming...after all there >are billions of dollars at stake. Indeed there are. Canadian farmers will love it, and people with water rights in the American southwest will be ecstatic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #8 January 26, 2011 Quote>Climate change can be good, we need to embrace global warming...after all there >are billions of dollars at stake. Indeed there are. Canadian farmers will love it, and people with water rights in the American southwest will be ecstatic. AHH, Diversification...you're good, I need to check back with my broker. Thanks for the tip. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #9 January 27, 2011 >AHH, Diversification...you're good, I need to check back with my broker. By all means! I can see investing in climate change economic disruption being a win-win for any denier. They can then simultaneously profit from it _and_ deny it's happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #10 January 27, 2011 Ok, I will concede (for arguments sake) that the planet is getting warmer, and that we are to blame, and that humanity is at risk. How then would you save the planet/humanity? If there is no solution to your (in my opinion contrived) problem then the whole warmist vs. deniers argument is esoteric; nothing more than an academic curiosity. Lets get brass tacks Bill how do we "save the planet?" If you don’t have a cogent solution, you are just blowing hot air that only contributes to the (non) problem you are complaining about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #11 January 27, 2011 Lets get down to brass tacks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #12 January 27, 2011 >Ok, I will concede (for arguments sake) that the planet is getting >warmer, and that we are to blame, and that humanity is at risk. How then >would you save the planet/humanity? The planet doesn't need saving. It will stay right here in its orbit no matter what we do to it. Nor does humanity. Even if we did our worst most of humanity would survive. >Lets get brass tacks Bill how do we "save the planet?" We don't. We just decide how much we want to change the planet and how much we want to keep it the same. Given that the biosphere of this planet provides for all of our needs, it makes sense to not do our best to alter it in ways we don't understand. How do we reduce the rate at which we are changing it? Reduce toxic pollution - the release of heavy metals, particulate pollution, NOx and SOx pollution etc. We've already made some good advances here. Cap and trade has drastically reduced the amount of SOx in the air. Emissions controls have reduced the amount of NOx and HC in the atmosphere. LA is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was in the 1970's. And despite all the predictions of doom and gloom by oil and car companies, the effort to clean up LA did not result in the death of the US car industries or all if us driving Pintos. We can also reduce greenhouse emissions, primarily methane, CO2 and NOx. We've made a good start on NOx. CO2 is harder to reduce, but we're getting there with more efficient vehicles, alternate fuel and power sources and cleaner power plants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 January 27, 2011 Quote Nor does humanity. Even if we did our worst most of humanity would survive. ? If we did our worse, a majority of the 6B people would die before a new equilibrium is reached. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 January 27, 2011 QuoteQuote Nor does humanity. Even if we did our worst most of humanity would survive. ? If we did our worse, a majority of the 6B people would die before a new equilibrium is reached. Actually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #15 January 27, 2011 You are aware, are you not, that Climate Change isn't just the weather in your local neighbourhood...? We live in a closed ecosystem, albeit a big one. Try taking one element of a small ecosystem and massively altering it and see what happens. This is also the same on a larger scale, just that the changes are slower and harder to perceive. Just because you refuse to believe doesn't mean it's not happening. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 January 27, 2011 QuoteYou are aware, are you not, that Climate Change isn't just the weather in your local neighbourhood...? We live in a closed ecosystem, albeit a big one. No, we don't. QuoteJust because you refuse to believe doesn't mean it's not happening. Just because you fervently believe doesn't mean it is. I reference you to the warming periods in the past - unless you're going to argue man was increasing the CO2 back in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 January 27, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century. Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report. He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #18 January 27, 2011 Quote Just because you refuse to believe doesn't mean it's not happening. Come to Jesus and be saved!!!! The end is coming soon!!! Repent!!!! Sense we are pushing beliefs on each other. There has been four warm periods in the last 700 years, 4 Ice ages in the history of the earth, and Mann's hockey stick graph can only be replicated by falsifying the numbers. Glaciers are coming back, the polar bear population is increasing and plants need CO2 to convert to Oxygen to live. It was called "global warming" when we thought the climate was getting warmer, now it's "climate change" now that we are in a cooling period. Do humans effect the environment? Probably. Does anybody know how? Fuck no. Are liberals willing to destroy everyone's lively hood based on what they "Believe"? Fuck ya. You can put a jar in the sun and say it's global warming, but small scale tests sometimes don't pan out when you go full size. Have you ever tried to fly a 30 foot paper airplane? Until we know what all the causes and effects are, let's ease back a little shall we? Or until then.... Repent ye sinners!!! The Devil is coming to get ye!!!! Come to Jesus or burn the the eternal pits of hell!!!!"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #19 January 27, 2011 "How do we reduce the rate at which we are changing it? Reduce toxic pollution - the release of heavy metals, particulate pollution, NOx and SOx pollution etc. We've already made some good advances here. Cap and trade has drastically reduced the amount of SOx in the air." False analogy. Nox and Sox are byproducts of combusting coal. Co2 is the fundamental result of combustion of hydrocarbons. (CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy) If you can find a way to remove CO2 from the equation without reducing the energy produced to zero, I will nominate you for a Nobel prize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #20 January 27, 2011 Let's just call it Name Change, since Global Warming couldn't achieve the desired results. The irony of the whole thing is, why do we desire to protect the source of evil, which is, supposedly, destroying us? Why not let nature run its course, and wipe out 1/3 of the population? Are you a true believer or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #21 January 27, 2011 >Nox and Sox are byproducts of combusting coal. No. SOx is a byproduct of coal and 'dirty' hydrocarbon production (i.e. high sulfur diesel.) NOx is a byproduct of ANY combustion; it's the result of atmospheric nitrogen combining with oxygen at high temperatures. >Co2 is the fundamental result of combustion of hydrocarbons. (CH4 + 2 O2 >→ CO2 + 2 H2O + energy) Yes. >If you can find a way to remove CO2 from the equation without reducing the >energy produced to zero, I will nominate you for a Nobel prize. Burn hydrogen instead. Or burn methane, then make more methane via the Sabatier process (zero net carbon.) Write that letter! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #22 January 27, 2011 Quote Let's just call it Name Change, since Global Warming couldn't achieve the desired results. The irony of the whole thing is, why do we desire to protect the source of evil, which is, supposedly, destroying us? Why not let nature run its course, and wipe out 1/3 of the population? Are you a true believer or not? I agree - Reduce the surplus population.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,881 #23 January 27, 2011 >Why not let nature run its course, and wipe out 1/3 of the population? Uh, OK. Others of us think that protecting people and the environment is a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 January 27, 2011 Quote Quote Let's just call it Name Change, since Global Warming couldn't achieve the desired results. The irony of the whole thing is, why do we desire to protect the source of evil, which is, supposedly, destroying us? Why not let nature run its course, and wipe out 1/3 of the population? Are you a true believer or not? I agree - Reduce the surplus population. We need "Death Panels". Let's get rid of some of this dead weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,929 #25 January 27, 2011 Quote Let's just call it Name Change, since Global Warming couldn't achieve the desired results. Global warming hasn't stopped. The trouble with that name is that morons and charlatans then used local, transient cold spells as fodder for denial. A consequence of global warming is climate change, and a consequence of climate change is more extreme weather. The OP is in fact evidence of this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
