First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Antarctica may be approaching "unstoppable" collapse.
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

rawratl wrote:

"Wishes alarmists would do sincere research" then posts a wikipedia article that is basically irrelevant to global warming denial. Unless you were trying to prove that calving is happening more often due to shoreline warming?


In your opinion, what is the right Global Average Temperature? (GAT)
6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
Guess climate refugees are going to become a thing sometime in the future.

It's a shame, I was hoping to retire in the Philippines, but since ocean levels are rising and weather is starting to become more severe it might be a good idea to just stay in the United States.

23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/20/17
I remember Antarctica having record snowfall and expanding massively a few years ago.

Also I live where a glacier used to be... So yay for global warming you gave me fertile land and plenty of lakes.
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

ninjitsuko wrote:



Yep, you're going to need to use a better, more up-to-date source than 2005. Dr. Bogardi actually updated his predictions in 2007 (Source). As for the United Nations, they also changed how they looked at climate change. They started the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention" (AWG-LCA).

The issue is that I think it's asinine to think "Oh hey, it's some bullshit since it's not bulletproof in its argument!" - in the like mind, I think the same about "Humans are the only source to climate change!" type of statements. Those kinds of statements are for those who only see things as "black or white" in terms of contrasting opinions with no in-between logic for adaptability.


What's updated about that powerpoint? I read every panel and couldn't see a projected year... I guess he decided to make it more open ended so he doesn't have to update it if it turns out he was wrong? Should've stopped reading after that 'coping with global inequalities' point, the rest of it's not much better.
Its just trash. I can't believe taxdollars went to fund this crap powerpoint.

I'm not saying climate change itself isn't real or that man cannot affect his environment, but this alarmist crap and virtue signaling is a joke. I mean, its really nice to wring your hands about climate change and the poor refugees when your sitting in your air conditioned room tapping away on a phone or PC. Bit different to do something about it. I personally don't want to be living in a mudhut amongst a hellscape of windfarms and burning solar roads that don't even produce enough energy to pay for themselves in fifty years, far beyond the life expectancy of the hardware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P90Y71ThfQs
4434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

uncletim wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Oh of course
Just like how California was supposed to be underwater by 2000 and NYC by 2015
Stop making promises you can't keep, its breaking my heart


Just because some special on ABC hinted at these things being possible doesn't mean squat when it comes to climate change. It'd be like me complaining that Back to the Future broke my heart because I don't have a hoverboard.

Maybe you just need to stop getting talking points from poor sources, man.


Come on dude everyone knows this whole climate change thing is a vast conspiracy started by Al Gore. China and 99% of the worlds scientist to enforce change to ummmm make the world a better place to live in I guess,,,,,,,,,,,Those brainy bastards how dare they want a better world for our childern


actually it has nothing to do with that and barely any of them would care if all our children died in a global flood from ice caps melting.

IT's all about money.... and politics.

First on the money side. Scientists need to actually do something to make money. They don't get payed to sit on their asses and they certainly don't get respect if they just do some worthless reserach to get the bare minimum paycheck. So scientists will of course put research into global warming and related fields. Most of them don't really care what happens to the enviroment but as long as they can convince people it needs to be done they can get payed to do it.

Then there are businesses and how they profit. This about all this "environmental friendly" stuff on the market. Do you think they are making these products so big and showy for the environment? No they are using it as a sales gimmick and before you say "What's it matter? If it helps I'll happily pay" it doesn't really. Often times the actual benefits are minimal at best and in some cases the additonal processing actually causes more harm than what little was prevented! For example take cars. Lets say they release a new line of cars that go from 50 miles per gallon to 55 miles per gallon. Great right? not really because what the automotive industry is doing is using our habit of liking bigger numbers to make us think they are doing more than they really are. Think about it the number of miles per gallon basically means a gallon of gas is divided by the number. But the bigger that number gets the smaller and more meaningless it becomes to increase it further.

For example going from 10 miles per gallon means 1/10 of a gallon per mile so if you make it 20 miles per gallon that becomes 1/20. But again look 50 to say 60. That's a difference of 1/50 to 1/60 which is a negligible difference. In fact the environment is probably damaged more from producing and shipping out those thousands of 'new" cars. Especially since to drive up fuel efficiency they are using more composites which produce pollutants when produced. But they still do it anyway because making "more fuel efficient cars" is a big selling point and is an easy way to get people to buy a new car instead of an older, cheaper one.

Or lets look at solar power companies. They'll report MASSIVE saving in your power bill by using their solar panels. But their reports are often based on ideal conditions which won't apply for most of the year. They also neglect to mention the cost of upkeep. Or take wind farms which require the destruction of miles of the enviroment and are a hazard to local bird populations because the turbulent winds produced around them cause birds to fall to their death. But These companies basically get a nice fat pay check from the government for being environmental friendly.


Now just to be clear. I'm not saying we shouldn't TRY to help the environment. I'm just trying to make it clear how little a lot of current efforts are actually working. Just asking the government to put limits on factories so that they move operations to another country to avoid those limits or trying to squeeze another 0.015% efficiency our of that engine is meaningless. We need REAL effort and REAL solutions if we expect to make anything better.
2051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

AppleFart wrote:

Good.. maybe there is more oil there that we can drill for down there. We can also send refugees there to live once it thaw's out a bit.


That's messed up, man.
Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/20/17

ronin99 wrote:


AppleFart wrote:

Good.. maybe there is more oil there that we can drill for down there. We can also send refugees there to live once it thaw's out a bit.


That's messed up, man.


Is it? How so?
4434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:



Yep, you're going to need to use a better, more up-to-date source than 2005. Dr. Bogardi actually updated his predictions in 2007 (Source). As for the United Nations, they also changed how they looked at climate change. They started the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention" (AWG-LCA).

The issue is that I think it's asinine to think "Oh hey, it's some bullshit since it's not bulletproof in its argument!" - in the like mind, I think the same about "Humans are the only source to climate change!" type of statements. Those kinds of statements are for those who only see things as "black or white" in terms of contrasting opinions with no in-between logic for adaptability.


What's updated about that powerpoint? I read every panel and couldn't see a projected year... I guess he decided to make it more open ended so he doesn't have to update it if it turns out he was wrong? Should've stopped reading after that 'coping with global inequalities' point, the rest of it's not much better.
Its just trash. I can't believe taxdollars went to fund this crap powerpoint.

I'm not saying climate change itself isn't real or that man cannot affect his environment, but this alarmist crap and virtue signaling is a joke. I mean, its really nice to wring your hands about climate change and the poor refugees when your sitting in your air conditioned room tapping away on a phone or PC. Bit different to do something about it. I personally don't want to be living in a mudhut amongst a hellscape of windfarms and burning solar roads that don't even produce enough energy to pay for themselves in fifty years, far beyond the life expectancy of the hardware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P90Y71ThfQs


Exactly. I love animals and the enviroment and all that. but I'm not going to listening to a bunch of "shock politics" nonsense or waste time on meaningless crap. Give me a solution, prove that it produes benefits that outweight the costs, and I'll get behind it.

Solar panel roadways that will never be able to pay themselves off, require constant maintenance, and produce enough heat to impact global warming FAR worse than a coal plant would have producing an equivalent amount of power.
2051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

AppleFart wrote:


ronin99 wrote:


AppleFart wrote:

Good.. maybe there is more oil there that we can drill for down there. We can also send refugees there to live once it thaw's out a bit.


That's messed up, man.


Is it? How so?


Since you seem to be (or at least are presenting yourself that way) mentally challenged I will explain.

1.This is not good.The ice melting is bad for sea levels, and, ultimately,coastal cities.
2.Oil is one of the things that is causing the problem in the first place,so,again,not good.
3.Even if Antarctica "thaws" out a bit,the condition is still to harsh for permanent settlements.Some scientist suggest that if global warming continues as is, only at the beginning of the 22nd century will parts of it start to become inhabitable.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
It's always cute seeing deniers of science until you remember they vote.
40248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Your friendly nei...
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
Neat
84890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Online
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
So, is Antarctica going to start to shrinking instead of growing? Or is it still going to grow, but shrink in certain area(s)? It reached a new record maximum in 2014 and has continued to grow since then. But, hey, maybe if it is growing to start shrinking it will mean that the Arctic starts to grow again. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17
Wow you cited Newsbusters they're like the Ghostbusters except instead of putting ghosts in cages they want to do that to trans people.
iofhua 
135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/20/17
Obviously the only option to save the world now is nuclear winter. You guys arm the nukes and I will press the red button.
84890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Online
Posted 5/18/17 , edited 5/18/17

iofhua wrote:

Obviously the only option to save the world now is nuclear winter. You guys arm the nukes and I will press the red button.


I think you are going to have a hard time trying to be the one to press the red button. As soon as a big red button is presented, everyone in the vicinity enters a trance like mentality of "must press big red button". I've pressed the big red button a couple times. It shut off power to the server room. Completely unavoidable.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.