PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change


Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 08:26 AM
I'm gonna keep this OP short as I have loads of work to do.

Do you believe in climate change? Why do you think this?

mattsmith48
September 16th, 2016, 09:36 AM
You don't believe climate change real you either look at facts and data we have and see its real and happening or you put on your tin foil hat and say its a conspiracy or a hoax that 99% of all scientist in the world are part of.


If you believe Climate Change is a conspiracy or a hoax. Why do you have to lose if we stop polluting and switch to renewable energy, even if we keep using fossil fuel eventually well run out so why not make the switch now so we don't have to face this issue in the future?

Dalcourt
September 17th, 2016, 12:00 PM
For most Americans climate change isn't a thing so I doubt this will become a lively debate

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 12:31 PM
If you believe Climate Change is a conspiracy or a hoax. Why do you have to lose if we stop polluting and switch to renewable energy, even if we keep using fossil fuel eventually well run out so why not make the switch now so we don't have to face this issue in the future?

I'm fine with looking towards better energy sources. But I don't see the logic in banning or seriously regulating current forms of energy when we don't have the technology or infrastructure to exist without it. I'll be fine with getting rid of fossil fuels if there is a logical alternative that exists, but currently there is not.

jamie_n5
September 17th, 2016, 01:25 PM
I think that the earth has gone through several climate changes in it's millions of years existence. We all know that there was an ice age and that dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change. I feel that we maybe contribute in some ways of adding to climate changes but the earth has always had a way of shedding off the things that have disrupted it's changes and threatened it's existence.

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 01:50 PM
I'm fine with looking towards better energy sources. But I don't see the logic in banning or seriously regulating current forms of energy when we don't have the technology or infrastructure to exist without it. I'll be fine with getting rid of fossil fuels if there is a logical alternative that exists, but currently there is not.
Regulating is different to banning. A company can be regulated to stop them leaking out tones of methane etc etc without banning the use of methane.

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 02:08 PM
Regulating is different to banning. A company can be regulated to stop them leaking out tones of methane etc etc without banning the use of methane.

Yes, which is why I said seriously regulating is bad, not regulating. There is regulating like certain emission standards that are fine, but then there are regulations that basically make it impossible to profitably continue working. That's why so many people are annoyed with the EPA right now, the regulations are so strict and multiple that it isn't profitable to continue working.

Jamie_n You have a good point people don't seem to understand. The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time. The 1800s for instance, was considerably colder that the recorded centuries before and after it for some reason. Many people call that the Mini-Ice Age. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the opposite to be happening today. There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 02:23 PM
Yes, which is why I said seriously regulating is bad, not regulating. There is regulating like certain emission standards that are fine, but then there are regulations that basically make it impossible to profitably continue working. That's why so many people are annoyed with the EPA right now, the regulations are so strict and multiple that it isn't profitable to continue working.
Fair enough point buddy, can you provide a source of a regulation which is too strict so we can discuss it?

Mars
September 17th, 2016, 02:24 PM
There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.
That's not true at all...

Periphery
September 17th, 2016, 02:27 PM
There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.

*looks at the sea level rising and glaciers and polar caps melting, facepalms*

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 02:31 PM
There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.
This is no longer a debate buddy, climate change is a fact.

We can debate on how to solve it but if you wanna believe politicians bought off by the fossil fuel industry and the those wearing tin foil hats then don't post.

There is a great amount of evidence as well as scientific explanations as to why it is happening. But I guess that is all too confusing for you.

devotionnel
September 17th, 2016, 02:46 PM
There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/images/modules/climate/GCclimate1PICT3.gif

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/graph-co2-1200x720.png

There's definitely not a correlation between these 2 graphs, is there??

There's surely an increase of CO₂ ppm over time (due to the industrial revolution - in the UK at least) which warms up the earth, along with other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane. You can see the trends in the graph that they both steadily increase along with each other, therefore meaning that they coincide with each other.

The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_1050_591_s_c1_c_c.jpg

This should blow that true-yet-false matter of fact tone of yours out of the water.

mattsmith48
September 17th, 2016, 03:45 PM
I'm fine with looking towards better energy sources. But I don't see the logic in banning or seriously regulating current forms of energy when we don't have the technology or infrastructure to exist without it. I'll be fine with getting rid of fossil fuels if there is a logical alternative that exists, but currently there is not.

There is the Sun and wind energy as alternative. Making the switch to 100% clean energy would create alot of job and help the economy two things you seem to care alot about and according to Jill Stein's campaign changing to 100% clean energy in the US one of the most poluting country in the world could be done by 2025.

I think that the earth has gone through several climate changes in it's millions of years existence. We all know that there was an ice age and that dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change. I feel that we maybe contribute in some ways of adding to climate changes but the earth has always had a way of shedding off the things that have disrupted it's changes and threatened it's existence.

Yes, which is why I said seriously regulating is bad, not regulating. There is regulating like certain emission standards that are fine, but then there are regulations that basically make it impossible to profitably continue working. That's why so many people are annoyed with the EPA right now, the regulations are so strict and multiple that it isn't profitable to continue working.

Jamie_n You have a good point people don't seem to understand. The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time. The 1800s for instance, was considerably colder that the recorded centuries before and after it for some reason. Many people call that the Mini-Ice Age. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the opposite to be happening today. There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.

Its True that the Earth climate as change before but never as fast as it is changing rightnow

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 05:48 AM
Safe to say who won this debate xD I personally don't consider climate change a debate however!

What do you guys think is the best way to combat climate change?
What do you think of carbon capture?

Vlerchan
September 18th, 2016, 06:26 AM
Making the switch to 100% clean energy would create alot of job and help the economy two things you seem to care
Please provide evidence supporting this claims. I would also appreciate an econometric report as opposed to a link to Jill Stein's campaign site.

mattsmith48
September 18th, 2016, 10:33 AM
Safe to say who won this debate xD I personally don't consider climate change a debate however!

Your right this is no longer a debate but with people still wanting to debate this it will only end up with losers of this debate those losers are future generations because of idiots and stupid people denying science instead of trying to do something to solve the problem.

What do you guys think is the best way to combat climate change?
What do you think of carbon capture?

Ban fossil fuel. Seriously! Im not saying to plan to ban it by 2025 like the Netherland, let's do it right fucking now.

Please provide evidence supporting this claims. I would also appreciate an econometric report as opposed to a link to Jill Stein's campaign site.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/clean-energy-provides-more-jobs-than-oilsands-report-says-1.2857520

AmyUK
September 18th, 2016, 01:01 PM
Climate change is real. It is impossible to argue with any logic that it's not.

You can argue the causes of it and whether it's anything abnormal. The Earth has gone through many, many climate cycles if you look way back in history, of increases and decreases in temperature.

I personally believe that the Earth is on a natural increase in temperature which is being exacerbated (I hope that's the right word :P ) by the activities of humans etc. We don't help, but I don't think we're the root cause of it. We're just making it happen faster. But i don't think it's all doom and gloom and I think it will all be reversed eventually, as it always has been.

Of course I think we should do a lot to reduce pollution from every source, not just because of climate change but because of all the other harmful effects as well.

Ban fossil fuel. Seriously! Im not saying to plan to ban it by 2025 like the Netherland, let's do it right fucking now.

You cannot just ban fossil fuels "right fucking now". That's just a kneejerk response. It'd be impossible to have the infrastructure etc setup to supply even a semi-meaningful proportion of the energy needed, let alone all of it. It would/will take years and years to have that.

Of course I'm sure it could be done quicker than it is being but there's something called money which has to be spent on other things too.

I guess that's why they don't have teenagers in charge of this stuff though, what do we know. lol

There's definitely not a correlation between these 2 graphs, is there??

There's a correlation but the graphs don't go back anything like far enough to provide credible evidence. Plus, the CO2 graph starts in 1960, about 2/3 of the way through the temperature graph, the latter is increasing steadily since way before that graph starts. Even that one doesn't go back far enough, 1861 is a drop in the ocean compared to the period of the earth's climate cycles.

You need data from a very long period, which shows that the sharp change in CO2 increase correlates to a sharp change in the Earth's temperature. Those graphs don't show that because the CO2 and temperature are both steadily increasing already. It's like having 2 graphs showing that road deaths and sales of cookies are both increasing together and claiming that that is evidence that cookies cause accidents.

(btw I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist or even that it's not caused/made worse by greenhouse gases, just that those graphs don't really provide much evidence. See my earlier reply :) )

Posts merged. Use the edit/multi quote button next time. ~Mars

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 01:07 PM
There's a correlation but the graphs don't go back anything like far enough to provide credible evidence. Plus, the CO2 graph starts in 1960, about 2/3 of the way through the temperature graph, the latter is increasing steadily since way before that graph starts. Even that one doesn't go back far enough, 1861 is a drop in the ocean compared to the period of the earth's climate cycles.

You need data from a very long period, which shows that the sharp change in CO2 increase correlates to a sharp change in the Earth's temperature. Those graphs don't show that because the CO2 and temperature are both steadily increasing already. It's like having 2 graphs showing that road deaths and sales of cookies are both increasing together and claiming that that is evidence that cookies cause accidents.

(btw I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist or even that it's not caused/made worse by greenhouse gases, just that those graphs don't really provide much evidence. See my earlier reply :) )
You are 100% right buddy, correlation does not show causation however that data combined with what we know about the greenhouse effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) shows that an increase in CO2 levels will reflect more heat back to the earth which will warm up the earth.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ap9_Jg7n35c/VW0U5LTNFXI/AAAAAAAAA5g/Z46jceXDS7Q/s1600/Greenhouse-effect.jpg

Porpoise101
September 18th, 2016, 06:16 PM
Please provide evidence supporting this claims. I would also appreciate an econometric report as opposed to a link to Jill Stein's campaign site.
His claim that it will "help the economy" is really vague, but there is some truth. If we use renewable and cleaner sources, our whole world becomes healthier and more sustainable. The "economy" can actually last in the very long term if we shift.

mattsmith48
September 18th, 2016, 06:48 PM
pWK3Q6KCh3w

PlasmaHam
September 18th, 2016, 07:31 PM
You are 100% right buddy, correlation does not show causation however that data combined with what we know about the greenhouse effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) shows that an increase in CO2 levels will reflect more heat back to the earth which will warm up the earth.
image (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ap9_Jg7n35c/VW0U5LTNFXI/AAAAAAAAA5g/Z46jceXDS7Q/s1600/Greenhouse-effect.jpg)

You do know that humans don't put out nearly as much CO2 as the Earth does naturally, never mind enough to seriously alter the climate? I'm not sure of the exact report, but a CO2 measuring satellite actually pinpointed the Amazon as a far higher producer of CO2 than America and Europe. Most scientists will admit that we don't understand the way CO2 naturally fluctuates enough to determine whether rising CO2 is human bound or from natural changes. Even then, they can't even be sure that CO2 is causing any climate change.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 07:42 PM
You do know that humans don't put out nearly as much CO2 as the Earth does naturally, never mind enough to seriously alter the climate. I'm not sure of the exact report, but a CO2 measuring satellite actually pinpointed the Amazon as a far higher producer of CO2 than America and Europe. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the Amazon isn't filled with humans.
10/10 for ignoring Shanie's post nuking you xD

Firstly, Carbon emissions are not the only chemical causing climate change and it is not just the greenhouse effect, there is also stuff like global dimming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) caused by carbon emissions.

There are also reasons we should regulate carbon emissions other than because of climate change such as health problems.

I know plants release CO2 but I wouldn't have expected it to be so much, could you provide a source?

You may be right in saying that humans do not cause biggest percentage of carbon emissions but that is not a reason not to reduce it.

PlasmaHam
September 18th, 2016, 07:51 PM
10/10 for ignoring Shanie's post nuking you xD

Firstly, Carbon emissions are not the only chemical causing climate change and it is not just the greenhouse effect, there is also stuff like global dimming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) caused by carbon emissions.

There are also reasons we should regulate carbon emissions other than because of climate change such as health problems.

I know plants release CO2 but I wouldn't have expected it to be so much, could you provide a source?

You may be right in saying that humans do not cause biggest percentage of carbon emissions but that is not a reason not to reduce it.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/epa_table3pct.png

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 07:55 PM
image (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/epa_table3pct.png)
Thanks for providing a source:)

Now I will repeat the parts of my previous parts that you must have missed.
You do know that humans don't put out nearly as much CO2 as the Earth does naturally, never mind enough to seriously alter the climate. I'm not sure of the exact report, but a CO2 measuring satellite actually pinpointed the Amazon as a far higher producer of CO2 than America and Europe. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the Amazon isn't filled with humans.
10/10 for ignoring Shanie's post nuking you xD

Firstly, Carbon emissions are not the only chemical causing climate change and it is not just the greenhouse effect, there is also stuff like global dimming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) caused by carbon emissions.

There are also reasons we should regulate carbon emissions other than because of climate change such as health problems.

You may be right in saying that humans do not cause biggest percentage of carbon emissions but that is not a reason not to reduce it.

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 09:26 PM
I presume you mean humanity-driven climate change, or whatever other way of putting it, as climate change in general has been happening since Earth had an atmosphere (basically when the Moon was forming).

Yes, I believe this specific climate change is around. The evidence for it is diverse and rampant. Personally I feel that this climate change is an immense and practically universal situation which will get bigger faster. It can take down civilisation as we know it, or help us do it ourselves. There could come a day within my lifetime when the coniferous forestry outside my house will go up in flames like a Californian wildfire of the 2010s.


The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time. The 1800s for instance, was considerably colder that the recorded centuries before and after it for some reason. Many people call that the Mini-Ice Age. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the opposite to be happening today. There is very little evidence that it is happening, never mind direct human involvement.

Theories working off solar electromagnetic activity and orbit-spin configurations of the Earth actually predict a general cooling, opposite to what is currently happening. Anyhow, unless the Sun were to suddenly go into very low electromagnetic activity for decades/centuries (like the Maunder Minimum, generally coincident with this Little Ice Age you mentioned), the cooling trend would not be at a similar pace at all to the the rate current temperatures are increasing by.

Interestingly enough, the solar activity is currently getting very low and may actually stay that way like the Maunder event, but how that will help against the crap humanity is doing with pollution is not fully known.


You do know that humans don't put out nearly as much CO2 as the Earth does naturally, never mind enough to seriously alter the climate?

The proportion of CO2 by volume in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was around 280 parts per million / ppm. It is now currently around 400 ppm.

That is a significant difference in itself.

If there was no water vapour, CO2, methane, ozone and other potent 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere, then the average surface temperatures of the Earth would be 33 degrees C colder.

mattsmith48
September 19th, 2016, 11:20 AM
You cannot just ban fossil fuels "right fucking now". That's just a kneejerk response. It'd be impossible to have the infrastructure etc setup to supply even a semi-meaningful proportion of the energy needed, let alone all of it. It would/will take years and years to have that.

Of course I'm sure it could be done quicker than it is being but there's something called money which has to be spent on other things too.

I guess that's why they don't have teenagers in charge of this stuff though, what do we know. lol


Atlease while everyone is busy debating idiots and conspiracy theorist, I am proposing solutions, if you have a better idea say it. You can take a year or two to change the infrastructure and give the time to people to buy electric cars but thats it. I know it would be hard on the economy to do this in a couple years espacially for countries who greatly depends on revenu from fossil fuels but fuck it this the most important and pressing issue of our time, the economy doesn't matter if everyone is dead.

AmyUK
September 19th, 2016, 02:09 PM
Atlease while everyone is busy debating idiots and conspiracy theorist, I am proposing solutions, if you have a better idea say it. You can take a year or two to change the infrastructure and give the time to people to buy electric cars but thats it. I know it would be hard on the economy to do this in a couple years espacially for countries who greatly depends on revenu from fossil fuels but fuck it this the most important and pressing issue of our time, the economy doesn't matter if everyone is dead.

A year or two? For everyone who owns a petrol- or diesel-powered car, van, lorry, motorbike, lawn mower, etc etc to buy a new electric one? :lol: I'd think you were trolling if you didn't have so many posts!!

What about aviation?? There are forays into airliners powered by alternative sources but for that to get approval for any kind of use in passenger transport will be incredibly time consuming. Heck it takes about 2 years to get approval for crew to use iPads in flight decks :lol:

Every. Single. Thing, bar almost nothing, relies on the use of fossil fuels. While I agree there should be a lot of effort spend to reduce that, and soon as well, you cannot just BAN fossil fuels within 1-2 years, it's laughable.

mattsmith48
September 19th, 2016, 02:27 PM
A year or two? For everyone who owns a petrol- or diesel-powered car, van, lorry, motorbike, lawn mower, etc etc to buy a new electric one? :lol: I'd think you were trolling if you didn't have so many posts!!

What about aviation?? There are forays into airliners powered by alternative sources but for that to get approval for any kind of use in passenger transport will be incredibly time consuming. Heck it takes about 2 years to get approval for crew to use iPads in flight decks :lol:

Every. Single. Thing, bar almost nothing, relies on the use of fossil fuels. While I agree there should be a lot of effort spend to reduce that, and soon as well, you cannot just BAN fossil fuels within 1-2 years, it's laughable.

Ill give you planes we can keep using those little longer and we can still use rocket fuel to send stuff into space. For everything else everyone as to change them.

I don't see you proposing any real solutions

AmyUK
September 19th, 2016, 02:44 PM
I don't see you proposing any real solutions

Granted, I'm not :) but neither are you, realistically, in fairness.

Peace out boi :watsup:

Vlerchan
September 19th, 2016, 05:59 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/clea...says-1.2857520
Interesting.

Though it's worth noting it is just counting the direct employment on the oil-sands, i.e. doesn't include the employment that non-oilsands production contributes to, and doesn't count the indirect employment (and I imagine this is significant as the midstream and downstream sectors are), so there's the chance there's a significant underestimation here.

His claim that it will "help the economy" is really vague, but there is some truth. If we use renewable and cleaner sources, our whole world becomes healthier and more sustainable.
That's one argument to be made, and the one I see as making the most sense.

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 12:59 PM
Ban fossil fuel. Seriously! Im not saying to plan to ban it by 2025 like the Netherland, let's do it right fucking now.

I get why you're so passionate about it but I don't think it would be disastrous for the poor that reply on their cars but cannot afford an electric car.

mattsmith48
September 22nd, 2016, 01:44 PM
I get why you're so passionate about it but I don't think it would be disastrous for the poor that reply on their cars but cannot afford an electric car.

What about giving them tax credit or something to help them change their car.

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 01:46 PM
What about giving them tax credit or something to help them change their car.
I am all for that buddy but we need to get the majority of poorer consumers off of fossil fuels before we can ban them!!

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2016, 01:59 PM
I'm sorry if I don't have too many pictures. I try to find accurate data, and the usually requires more work than copying images off Google. I didn't really want to reply because of the obvious flaws, but because you've been begging here you go.

*looks at the sea level rising and glaciers and polar caps melting, facepalms*
Here is a link from the right-wing extremist group know as NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses), I'm not sure if you have ever heard of them. Anyhow, their study has shown that the Antarctic Ice Cap is gaining billions of tons of ice and snow every year, fall more than the lost from glaciers.

It is also hard to justify your claims about the ice-caps melting when this exists. (Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013') These guys are like the crazy religious nut-jobs who believe that the world is going to end in 2017, and once 2017 passes by okay they change it to 2020, and it goes on forever, never getting any more accurate.

image (http://www.cotf.edu/ete/images/modules/climate/GCclimate1PICT3.gif)

image (http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/graph-co2-1200x720.png)

There's definitely not a correlation between these 2 graphs, is there??

There's surely an increase of CO₂ ppm over time (due to the industrial revolution - in the UK at least) which warms up the earth, along with other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane. You can see the trends in the graph that they both steadily increase along with each other, therefore meaning that they coincide with each other.

image (http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_1050_591_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

This should blow that true-yet-false matter of fact tone of yours out of the water.
To start off, here is basically an admission by one of the leading climate change organizations in the world, admitting that the climate model they have been using for decades is seriously flawed. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/) If people who's jobs depend on pushing global warming as fact admit this, then there are some pretty obvious issues. A major climate scientist said that the evidence points towards climate models over the last 6 decades are flawed. They even wrote a little paper (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf) on it.

Also, if you guys would ever actually do some research, then it is a pretty known facts that scientists admit that there hasn't been any global warming over the last 20 years, and they have no idea why. Which is odd, because most of your graphs seemed to have depicted warming during the 1990s and 2000s,which by the current data never happened.

Here is also something interesting (https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp). Apparently, there is considerable evidence that the Earth has undergone drastic climate changes in the past, with some being in only a decade.

Periphery
September 22nd, 2016, 02:05 PM
PlasmaHam What is the current data you are talking about then? Maybe provide it?

Also how is climate change connected to religious psycho's claiming the world will end?

Also, stop acting like your posts are flawless and you're a genius, seriously stop it.

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 02:57 PM
Here is a link from the right-wing extremist group know as NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses), I'm not sure if you have ever heard of them. Anyhow, their study has shown that the Antarctic Ice Cap is gaining billions of tons of ice and snow every year, fall more than the lost from glaciers.
A very interesting article and I am very glad that you yourself accept that NASA is a source of accurate data as you mentioned in this post that you tried to find it.

Because of how awesome and accurate NASA is... I think you'll enjoy this (http://climate.nasa.gov/)and this (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)


To start off, here is basically an admission by one of the leading climate change organizations in the world, admitting that the climate model they have been using for decades is seriously flawed. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/) If people who's jobs depend on pushing global warming as fact admit this, then there are some pretty obvious issues. A major climate scientist said that the evidence points towards climate models over the last 6 decades are flawed. They even wrote a little paper (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf) on it.
Sooo your next 'accurate source' is a politically conservative news and opinion website. Whoop whoop!! xD With such a great reputation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dominican-official-links-daily-caller-to-alleged-lies-about-menendez/2013/03/22/d81470d0-930a-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html).

I have read that paper and it talks about how the climate change model predicts too hot too fast which is a fair criticism although I would be more willing to believe it if it was more accepted in the scientific community.

It doesn't deny human influenced climate change.

Do you not believe the millions donated by the fossil fuel industry to right-wing politicians (and some lefties) would influence their opinions?

I believe you are cherry-picking reports and data but don't worry I can do the same.... and there is a lil more science on climate change's side.

35 facts about climate change (http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-climate-change-facts-php)
More facts (https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/climate_change_facts.pdf)
Oh look some more! (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/)
Found a few more (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/climate_change/facts/en/)

Should I mention these all came up on the first page of google?

Do you know what causes climate change?
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

The sun cannot explain our current temperature increases.

Do you not believe in the greenhouse effect? It is not that complicated to understand... here is a diagram they use to explain to kids... hope it helps.
http://alltaskstraducoes.com.br/vdisk/27/diagram-of-the-greenhouse-effect-for-kids-i16.jpg

Also, if you guys would ever actually do some research, then it is a pretty known facts that scientists admit that there hasn't been any global warming over the last 20 years, and they have no idea why. Which is odd, because most of your graphs seemed to have depicted warming during the 1990s and 2000s,which by the current data never happened.Cough climate myth (http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm) cough xD
That moment when you say others don't research and then say something a quick google search can disprove.
Source 2 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/)
Research reported in July 2015 on an updated NOAA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA) dataset[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Karl15-1)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Ars_homogenization-3) casts doubt on the existence of a hiatus, and it finds no indication of a slowdown even in earlier years.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-NCDC_NOAA-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-NPR-doubt-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Guardian-NoHiatus-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-15) Scientists working on other datasets welcomed this study, though they have expressed they view that the recent warming trend was less than in previous periods of the same length.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-BBC-valid-17) Subsequently, a detailed study supports the conclusion that warming is continuing, but it also find there was less warming between 2001 and 2010 than climate models had predicted, and that this slowdown might be attributed to short-term variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation) (PDO), which was negative during that period.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Dai_et_al_2015-18)[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Fyfe_et_al_2016-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-20) Another review finds "no substantive evidence" of a pause in global warming.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-21)[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-WaPo_24Nov15-22) A statistical study of global temperature data since 1970 concludes that the term 'hiatus' or 'pause' is not justified.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-23)Source 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus)


Here is also something interesting (https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp). Apparently, there is considerable evidence that the Earth has undergone drastic climate changes in the past, with some being in only a decade.I agree it is interesting but it doesn't help your debate xD
What causes abrupt climate change?
Current theories on the cause of abrupt climatic change focus on sudden shut downs and start-ups of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation), which is a global network of density-driven ocean currents. The Meridional Overturning Circulation transports a tremendous amount of heat northward, keeping the North Atlantic and much of Europe up to 9°F (5°C) warmer, particularly in the winter. A sudden shut down of this current would have a ripple effect throughout the ocean-atmosphere system, forcing worldwide changes in ocean currents, and in the path of the atmospheric jet stream. Studies of North Atlantic Ocean sediments have revealed that the Meridional Overturning Circulation has shut down many times in the past, and that many of these shut downs coincide with the abrupt climate change events noted in the Greenland ice cores.

Drewboyy
September 22nd, 2016, 05:46 PM
Global Warming is good for the planet actually, but right now it's happening too fast

Flapjack
September 23rd, 2016, 08:16 AM
Global Warming is good for the planet actually, but right now it's happening too fast
How is it good for the planet?

What about the harmful effects of the chemicals in the air?

StoppingTom
September 23rd, 2016, 09:32 AM
but what if we create a better world that isn't dependent on non-renewable resources all for nothing you big dummies

Paraxiom
September 23rd, 2016, 03:17 PM
Global Warming is good for the planet actually [...]

If you mean that the polar regions will get warmer and such, then that will only be a good thing overall after a mass extinction first happens because of it, along with general sea level increase.


What about the harmful effects of the chemicals in the air?

In fairness you could be argued against for saying that, since the air is a mixture of chemicals anyway!


but what if we create a better world that isn't dependent on non-renewable resources all for nothing you big dummies

Sure, we'll think about the future when it comes. :D

Drewboyy
September 23rd, 2016, 11:53 PM
How is it good for the planet?

What about the harmful effects of the chemicals in the air?


If you mean that the polar regions will get warmer and such, then that will only be a good thing overall after a mass extinction first happens because of it, along with general sea level increase.



I mean, even before cars and factories became a thing the planet was naturally becoming warmer and if it happens naturally then it's good. I forgot exactly why but I had 2 scientists at a local greenhouse gas emission project thing tell me. It also helps rainforests I guess.As long as the chemicals don't directly effect us they don't hold such a high threat. Long term however, there would be a problem.

Hence why they changed the name to climate change: there were a lot of people who didn't believe in global warming. Change the name to something so specific it's impossible to argue and boom, mindless people.

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 09:10 AM
[...] if it happens naturally then it's good [...]
The fact that you can't remember why it's good means I can't even tell you why you're wrong.

But the equivalence of natural with good is an obvious non-sequitur, for amongst other reasons, it's encounter of the is-ought problem.

Change the name to something so specific it's impossible to argue and boom, mindless people.
Penetrating critique, there.

phuckphace
September 24th, 2016, 10:51 AM
hey fams and fammettes just dropping by with a freundlich reminder that only white people care about the environment and once we go extinct the planet is utterly fucked. seriously, go look at a panel on climate change and see if you can tell the difference between that and a gaggle of hipsters hanging out at Starbucks (you can't!)

I feel like I repeat myself a lot with this but it's true no matter how we want to spin it. Americans can all switch over 100% to renewable energy and so can Europeans - okay cool. meanwhile the Chinese will continue smogging up the environment with their ant-farm factories and Indians will continue shitting in the street (which eventually drains to the ocean). Africa is...well, Africa. if you believe this will change for the better at any point you probably also believe India will be a superpower by 2030 and Africa will join the G7 cru after a few more decades of vaccines and donated T-shirts

ThisBougieLife
September 24th, 2016, 11:00 AM
^ Fine, we'll save white people, geez...if it means that much to you ;) Now if you'll excuse me I'll be at the sperm bank...

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:15 AM
I mean, even before cars and factories became a thing the planet was naturally becoming warmer and if it happens naturally then it's good. I forgot exactly why but I had 2 scientists at a local greenhouse gas emission project thing tell me. It also helps rainforests I guess.As long as the chemicals don't directly effect us they don't hold such a high threat. Long term however, there would be a problem.

The massive extinctions cause by climate change and that he leaves room for new species and for the ones able to adapt like that time 65 millions years ago a asteroid crash on Earth and the climate change cause by the crash killed 75% of all living thing died and it made room for mammals and eventually us. Thats the only way i would see someone saying naturally accuring climate change is a good thing.

Hence why they changed the name to climate change: there were a lot of people who didn't believe in global warming. Change the name to something so specific it's impossible to argue and boom, mindless people.

They change the name to climate change because part of the process of making this planet to hot of live is the extreme weather we are currently experiencing including tougher winters like two years ago.

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:20 AM
hey fams and fammettes just dropping by with a freundlich reminder that only white people care about the environment

Thats racist.


I feel like I repeat myself a lot with this but it's true no matter how we want to spin it. Americans can all switch over 100% to renewable energy and so can Europeans - okay cool. meanwhile the Chinese will continue smogging up the environment with their ant-farm factories and Indians will continue shitting in the street (which eventually drains to the ocean). Africa is...well, Africa. if you believe this will change for the better at any point you probably also believe India will be a superpower by 2030 and Africa will join the G7 cru after a few more decades of vaccines and donated T-shirts

What stop us from making them change to 100% renewable energy?

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 11:25 AM
What stop us from making them change to 100% renewable energy?
Their sovereignty as independent states.

---

It seems obvious that as investment in renewable energies proceeds in the West the relative cost of green energy infrastructure will fall, it will then be in the profit-motivated interests of those amoral, barbarian darkies to swap into green energy sources.

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:28 AM
Their sovereignty as independent states.

---

It seems obvious that as investment in renewable energies proceeds in the West the relative cost of green energy infrastructure will fall, it will then be in the profit-motivated interests of those amoral, barbarian darkies to swap into green energy sources.

Put pressure on them to change to 100% renewable energy, what stop us from doing that?

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 11:29 AM
Put pressure on them to change to 100% renewable energy, what stop us from doing that?
The increasing proportion of global GDP that these countries represent.

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:31 AM
The increasing proportion of global GDP that these countries represent.

Whats more important having great global economy or keeping the earth habitable?

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 11:38 AM
Whats more important having great global economy or keeping the earth habitable?
To them, a healthy economy*.

Of course, divestment will be a shock but whether it would be a larger shock that a rapid transition to green energy is questionable, especially with increasing linkages between developing states, and the null chance that their will be a common front held by all developed states.

---

I also find the neo-imperialist notions of liberals on this board when it comes to holding other states to ransom in the name of our political values, interesting.

* climate change won't end the world though, just make it massively uncomfortable for a considerable portion of the population (most of them in developing states - Canada would probably benefit).

Drewboyy
September 24th, 2016, 11:39 AM
They change the name to climate change because part of the process of making this planet to hot of live is the extreme weather we are currently experiencing including tougher winters like two years ago.


The words "climate change" show nothing to say the Earth is getting extremely hot. All it says is that the long term weather (doesn't even specify where) is changing. Which happens all the time, regardless of human intervention. The words "global warming" says the Earth, globally, is getting warmer. See how unspecific climate change is?

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 11:45 AM
See how unspecific climate change is?
From the name, what would you deduce that the theory of relativity claims?

Or the theory of evolution? for something that bit more exact.

mattsmith48
September 24th, 2016, 11:59 AM
To them, a healthy economy*.

Of course, divestment will be a shock but whether it would be a larger shock that a rapid transition to green energy is questionable, especially with increasing linkages between developing states, and the null chance that their will be a common front held by all developed states.

---

I also find the neo-imperialist notions of liberals on this board when it comes to holding other states to ransom in the name of our political values, interesting.

Sometimes we have to do whats necessary, we put sanctions on countries to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, why not do it to fight climate change too? Yes doing this with China would hurt the west economically but will also hurt them but if this is the cost to pay its fine, better to be poor and alive than rich and dead.

* climate change won't end the world though, just make it massively uncomfortable for a considerable portion of the population (most of them in developing states - Canada would probably benefit).

Well end up with no more water, no breathable air, and because of the mass instinctions it will cause nothing left to eat but jelly fishs. Sounds kinda end of the world to me.

The words "climate change" show nothing to say the Earth is getting extremely hot. All it says is that the long term weather (doesn't even specify where) is changing. Which happens all the time, regardless of human intervention. The words "global warming" says the Earth, globally, is getting warmer. See how unspecific climate change is?

Climate change just more accurate of what we are and will be experiencing while global warming is more the result of climate change

Vlerchan
September 24th, 2016, 12:16 PM
Sometimes we have to do whats necessary, we put sanctions on countries to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, why not do it to fight climate change too? Yes doing this with China would hurt the west economically but will also hurt them but if this is the cost to pay its fine, better to be poor and alive than rich and dead.
Like I said, this isn't recommended because we will lose and it's not just China that would require sanctions but the BRICS, gulf monarchies, and all other emerging markets that you can think of.

On the point of China in particular, their dictatorships entire mandate rests on securing continuously high growth rates - and when not able to, leaning on its emerging nationalist ethos. It is never in China's interest to undermine its growth figures for the rest of the world. Ever.

Well end up with no more water, no breathable air, and because of the mass instinctions it will cause nothing left to eat but jelly fishs. Sounds kinda end of the world to me.
I have no idea what sort of timescale you're considering here but I doubt it's short enough that we can make meaningful predictions about the technological advancements that are bound to occur, and thus intelligently predict the outcomes of climate change in that frame.

Paraxiom
September 24th, 2016, 02:03 PM
I mean, even before cars and factories became a thing the planet was naturally becoming warmer and if it happens naturally then it's good.

If the planet was 'naturally' getting warmer, it was comparatively at a very low rate compared to now. Anyway 'natural' doesn't mean much, because prehistoric mass extinctions were natural, and they weren't 'good' by the standards of the many species then.


I forgot exactly why but I had 2 scientists at a local greenhouse gas emission project thing tell me.

It would have helped if the mentioned even just the process behind this background natural warming.


It also helps rainforests I guess.

Not really, when there's desertification and excess nutrient drainage going on, along with deforestation.


As long as the chemicals don't directly effect us they don't hold such a high threat. Long term however, there would be a problem.

It's a long term manifestation of the results, which already started decades ago. These pollutants do have a direct effect in eastern Asia, with major smog issues and such, too.


Hence why they changed the name to climate change: there were a lot of people who didn't believe in global warming. Change the name to something so specific it's impossible to argue and boom, mindless people.

Both 'global warming' and 'climate change' are used as terms here, but the latter is more popular now as it is more accurate, not because of a reactionary move against nonbelievers.


The massive extinctions cause by climate change and that he leaves room for new species and for the ones able to adapt like that time 65 millions years ago a asteroid crash on Earth and the climate change cause by the crash killed 75% of all living thing died and it made room for mammals and eventually us. Thats the only way i would see someone saying naturally accuring climate change is a good thing.

This actually mostly shows just how arbitrary goodness is in prehistory, by our standards.


Put pressure on them to change to 100% renewable energy, what stop us from doing that?

Them saying no. If assertive persistence is adhered to, then weaponry. They do it for mainly the economic benefits. Oil companies are very powerful, for example.


Whats more important having great global economy or keeping the earth habitable?

In the eyes of the most powerful companies, a great global economy that some can get rich off.

"Who cares about the biosphere of the Earth if I can't enjoy it in my life and/or help it build my legacy?" and so on.


The words "climate change" show nothing to say the Earth is getting extremely hot. All it says is that the long term weather (doesn't even specify where) is changing. Which happens all the time, regardless of human intervention.

This is why I am for the term 'humanity-caused climate change' or whatever similar.


Sometimes we have to do whats necessary, we put sanctions on countries to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, why not do it to fight climate change too? Yes doing this with China would hurt the west economically but will also hurt them but if this is the cost to pay its fine, better to be poor and alive than rich and dead.

Good luck with the nuclear weaponry part.


Well end up with no more water, no breathable air, and because of the mass instinctions it will cause nothing left to eat but jelly fishs. Sounds kinda end of the world to me.

The worst-case predictions are for around a 6 degree C global average temperature increase, along with an extreme mass extinction and desertification of almost all land, among other things. The carbon dioxide levels definitely will not go near even 0.1% atmospheric concentration by volume, and the sea level will be on average 70 metres higher.

Breathable air or significant water will not go away at all. Just making a stand with that specific point.

What you're illustrating is more like how the Earth will be in many tens of hundreds of millions of years' time, because of the ageing Sun.

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 10:44 AM
Like I said, this isn't recommended because we will lose and it's not just China that would require sanctions but the BRICS, gulf monarchies, and all other emerging markets that you can think of.

On the point of China in particular, their dictatorships entire mandate rests on securing continuously high growth rates - and when not able to, leaning on its emerging nationalist ethos. It is never in China's interest to undermine its growth figures for the rest of the world. Ever.


I have no idea what sort of timescale you're considering here but I doubt it's short enough that we can make meaningful predictions about the technological advancements that are bound to occur, and thus intelligently predict the outcomes of climate change in that frame.

China was just an example but they are still the most polluting country on Earth. You have to get most countries to agree to get everyone to agree on changing to 100% renewable energy and ban the use fossil fuel (except for space travel) by a certain date lets say 2020. Everyone who doesn't do it you put major sanctions on them.

Paraxiom I was talking about drinkable water

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 11:32 AM
You have to get most countries to agree to get everyone to agree on changing to 100% renewable energy and ban the use fossil fuel (except for space travel) by a certain date lets say 2020.
The problem is, it is not currently logical to do such. The technology for global renewable energy is in its infancy, and the high prices would limit it to richer, smaller, more populated countries like most of Europe. Even then, equipment like solar panels and electric cars use a very large amount of energy and toxic chemicals to produce them, most of which is dumped into the environment afterwards. And unless we can find a new super battery, Lithium is going to become the next gold. Also, the economic catastrophe that will occur from this would be absolutely huge, and would more likely hurt efforts instead of helping.

It is odd that you want to make space travel the sole exception to this ban of fossil fuels. However, you might want to think about that for a second. Combustion requires fuel, spark, and oxygen, space has no oxygen. They instead use liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, as that is fuel that works in both atmospheric and space conditions. They also sometimes use a solid propellant, but typical fossil fuels are rarely used for obvious reasons.

ethan-s
September 25th, 2016, 11:42 AM
The fact is is that all of this consensus stuff is b.s. Climate change is not real, and if it is, I rather enjoy the warm weather. A worldwide Florida!!

Anyone ever heard of a weather pattern?

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 11:55 AM
The fact is is that all of this consensus stuff is b.s. Climate change is not real, and if it is, I rather enjoy the warm weather. A worldwide Florida!!

Kahn Paraxiom this is perfect example of why conspiracy theories don't belong here. Someone is going to start debating with him on this instead of having a real discussion on how to stop this.

ethan-s
September 25th, 2016, 11:58 AM
Kahn Paraxiom this is perfect example of why conspiracy theories don't belong here. Someone is going to start debating with him on this instead of having a real discussion on how to stop this.

I would post links but I'm on mobile right now.

O yeah, stop spreading conspiracies about climate.

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 12:01 PM
The fact is is that all of this consensus stuff is b.s. Climate change is not real, and if it is, I rather enjoy the warm weather. A worldwide Florida!!

They claim a made up consensus means something is automatically right. They constant make the claim that,"97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and dangerous." Which is not true at all. I've read varying different surveys about this, and the average number of scientists that support human climate change is closer to 50%. Regardless though, in science, might does not make right. There have been hundreds of scientific theories that were accepted by the majority that have turned out to be wrong.
Kahn Paraxiom this is perfect example of why conspiracy theories don't belong here. Someone is going to start debating with him on this instead of having a real discussion on how to stop this.:props: You really do amuse me. A valid claim based off of scientific evidence is a conspiracy theory, yet claiming that one man will end the world isn't.

Porpoise101
September 25th, 2016, 12:53 PM
They claim a made up consensus means something is automatically right. They constant make the claim that,"97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and dangerous." Which is not true at all. I've read varying different surveys about this, and the average number of scientists that support human climate change is closer to 50%. Regardless though, in science, might does not make right. There have been hundreds of scientific theories that were accepted by the majority that have turned out to be wrong.
Interested in seeing these reports.

You are right that might does not make right, but based on the data we do have, we can make a judgement about it. Until it is disproved. That is how science works.

Currently evidence points to the fact that our planet is warming (as a whole, not everywhere). We also have data that shows an increase in temperature since the Industrial Revolution, even though we should be in a cooling period. Lastly, we can correlate certain gasses to an ability called the greenhouse effect. It just turns out that an increase in those gasses have went along with an increase in the global temperature. Those gasses also happened to be released during production of livestock and burning of fossil fuels. These practices have all increased during the period of warming.

All of this information is at your eyes' glance. What do you make of it?

Vlerchan
September 25th, 2016, 12:59 PM
There's a certain argument to be had with regards to consensus - which a famous SCIENCE paper, asking those who were researchers in that specific area, concluded was about 97% - but the real argument is that time and time again, peer-reviewed journals publish articles that reach the conclusion that human activity makes a significant impact to the change we are currently witnessing.

Originally I had intended to just link to the IPCC's 2013 Summary for Policymakers and Markus Huber & Reto Knutti (2012). But instead what I have gone and done is taken the most recent papers from Nature: Climate Change, the most prestigious journal in its field, and linked to the last number of publications on the specific subject. I did not filter our the ones that disagreed with me, as anyone who does the same will find. In each publication, which I should remind people is peer reviewed by experts in the field, the conclusion reach was that man had a significant role to play.

IPCC (2013), Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf).
Jiafu Mao, et al. (TBP), Human-induced greening of the northern extratropical land surface, Nature: Climate Change, TBP, TBP. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3056.html)
John C. Fyfe et al. (2016), Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 224 - 228. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html)
Sönke Dangendorf (2016), Oceanography: Human influence on sea-level rise, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 661 - 662. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2994.html)
Gerrit Hansen & Dáithí Stone (2016), Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 532 - 537. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2896.html)
Aimée B. A. Slangen, John A. Church, Cecile Agosta, Xavier Fettweis, Ben Marzeion & Kristin Richter (2016), Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970, Nature: Climate Change, 5, pp. 701 - 705. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2991.html)
Mohammad Reza Najafi, Francis W. Zwiers & Nathan P. Gillett (2015), Attribution of Arctic temperature change to greenhouse-gas and aerosol influences, Nature: Climate Change, 5, pp. 246–249. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2524.html)
Duo Chan & Qigang Wu (2015), Significant anthropogenic-induced changes of climate classes since 1950, Scientific Reports, 5, article number: 13487. (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487)
Markus Huber & Reto Knutti (2012), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature GeoScience, 5, pp. 31 - 36. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html)

Enjoy.

mattsmith48
September 25th, 2016, 01:00 PM
The problem is, it is not currently logical to do such. The technology for global renewable energy is in its infancy, and the high prices would limit it to richer, smaller, more populated countries like most of Europe. Even then, equipment like solar panels and electric cars use a very large amount of energy and toxic chemicals to produce them, most of which is dumped into the environment afterwards. And unless we can find a new super battery, Lithium is going to become the next gold. Also, the economic catastrophe that will occur from this would be absolutely huge, and would more likely hurt efforts instead of helping.

Electric cars and solar panels being made of a few toxic chemicals is not a reason to not use them and keep using fossil fuel cars and burnning coal or using nuclear powerplant to produce electricity, the use of those chemicals or how we dispose of them can easily be regulated. They also aren't the only option there is alot of different forms of renewable energy like wind power, hydroelectricity, geothermal heat, ect. The cost of the switch or the effect on the economy could be an issue for some countries but the long term benefits are worth it. Ive also said its better to be poor and alive than rich and dead.

They claim a made up consensus means something is automatically right. They constant make the claim that,"97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and dangerous." Which is not true at all. I've read varying different surveys about this, and the average number of scientists that support human climate change is closer to 50%. Regardless though, in science, might does not make right. There have been hundreds of scientific theories that were accepted by the majority that have turned out to be wrong.

:props: You really do amuse me. A valid claim based off of scientific evidence is a conspiracy theory, yet claiming that one man will end the world isn't.

What valid claim? Its proven fact that man made climate change is happening and we have to do something about it now. The only scientists who still say that climate change is not real are bought by oil companies. Debating this is no different than debating the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was a hoax. The Earth is a sphere and humans did land on the moon does are proven facts and there is no reason to debate this, climate change is the same is proven to be real let's move on to the next debate how do we stop this.

phuckphace
September 25th, 2016, 03:11 PM
I also find the neo-imperialist notions of liberals on this board when it comes to holding other states to ransom in the name of our political values, interesting.

same!

what's your opinion on this phenomenon?

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 04:42 PM
What valid claim? Its proven fact that man made climate change is happening and we have to do something about it now. The only scientists who still say that climate change is not real are bought by oil companies. Debating this is no different than debating the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was a hoax. The Earth is a sphere and humans did land on the moon does are proven facts and there is no reason to debate this, climate change is the same is proven to be real let's move on to the next debate how do we stop this.
Climate change is not a proven fact, anyone with any knowledge of the scientific method will tell you this. It might be a convincing theory to some, but it is just a theory. However, since you have such an irrational fear of actually listening to discerning opinions, I will not continue this here. I have a good knowledge of energy production though, so I will discuss that.

Electric cars and solar panels being made of a few toxic chemicals is not a reason to not use them and keep using fossil fuel cars and burnning coal or using nuclear powerplant to produce electricity,
From the sound of your post, it seems like you are against nuclear power. That is odd, being that nuclear power, when conducted in a proper and safe manner, is actually very environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, we do have to deal with nuclear waste, but technology has been improving to deal with concealing it better. Hopefully, we can one day figure out a way to obtain stable fusion reactors, where nuclear waste will no longer be an issue.
the use of those chemicals or how we dispose of them can easily be regulated.We already have laws concerning toxic waste, yet it still happens. What makes you think that it won't keep happening? A lot of this waste cannot be practically removed with current technologies.
They also aren't the only option there is alot of different forms of renewable energy like wind power, hydroelectricity, geothermal heat, ect. The cost of the switch or the effect on the economy could be an issue for some countries but the long term benefits are worth it. Ive also said its better to be poor and alive than rich and dead. There are numerous ways to produce energy, yes, but they all have their limits.

Hydroelectric: Requires to be located close to a river, and most of the time the production of a dam with turbines. This can hurt local wildlife by blocking river routes and causing increased evaporation of the river, which can hurt cities and habitats downstream.


Geothermal: Requires you to be close to a geothermal hotspot, which are not common. I believe the only country in the world that has ever used geothermal power practically has been Iceland, in which produces 80% of all energy from it. And that is because the whole island is consists 130 volcanoes.


Solar: Requires a large surface area to be practical, so acres upon acres are needed for just a small town. This can destroy natural habitats. Solar panels themselves are expensive and somewhat dangerous to make, and require a considerable amount of upkeep. Will not be very effective in cloudy areas, and obviously wouldn't work at night.


Wind: Similar space requirements as solar panels. There is also a possibility that wind turbines kill a large amount of birds, I'm not sure about that. Expensive to make, considerable upkeep, and only effectively work in windy areas.


Hydrogen: Despite being the most abundant element, hydrogen is rarely found naturally in it's elemental form on Earth. To produce it, electrolysis is done to water, which requires a considerable amount of electricity. Even once obtained, elemental hydrogen will effectively weaken and destroy most all metals it comes in contact with, which limits it's usage considerably.


Biofuels: It is ironic that climate change supporters always claim that denying scientists are being bribed by fossil fuel companies, when the agriculture farmers are doing the exact same to the supporters. Biofuels, like ethanol, are the by product of plants, typically corn. This results in both raising food prices(which is why farmers are so for global warming) and resulting in increased farmlands. While ethanol can replace gasoline as fuel, it is far less effective than gasoline. As someone who works on cars, I can tell you that ethanol is awful on injectors and carburetors.

That got really long:P
The cost of the switch or the effect on the economy could be an issue for some countries but the long term benefits are worth it.
As I said before, it is not currently logically practical to do such. It would take decades before we get to that point, and decades more to prep society to switch. You are proposing 3 years for a total ban, which will in no way work.
I also find the neo-imperialist notions of liberals on this board when it comes to holding other states to ransom in the name of our political values, interesting.
Yep! All too often I see liberals pushing their opinion as proven fact, and forcing others to accept it.

Paraxiom
September 25th, 2016, 06:51 PM
China was just an example but they are still the most polluting country on Earth. You have to get most countries to agree to get everyone to agree on changing to 100% renewable energy and ban the use fossil fuel (except for space travel) by a certain date lets say 2020. Everyone who doesn't do it you put major sanctions on them.

China would need to be given the offer of an economic incentive that they cannot refuse, let's put it that way.


I was talking about drinkable water

Alright, I get you now with that.


The problem is, it is not currently logical to do such.

It is only not logical by short-term economic reasoning.


The technology for global renewable energy is in its infancy[...]

This technology is ready to roll out everywhere if enough money is given. The only quality of infancy that it has is relative infancy of global infrastructure, through economic restriction by forces that are for non-renewable energy.


[...] and the high prices would limit it to richer, smaller, more populated countries like most of Europe.

Give it free to the poorer countries, the technology and knowledge on how to maintain them.


Even then, equipment like solar panels and electric cars use a very large amount of energy and toxic chemicals to produce them, most of which is dumped into the environment afterwards.

These pollutants are of negligible quantity when comparing this technology to coal power stations, oil rigs, vehicles, etc...


And unless we can find a new super battery, Lithium is going to become the next gold.

Developments are ongoing for batteries with aluminium, but this and other research is also limited in current available research budgets and such.


Also, the economic catastrophe that will occur from this would be absolutely huge, and would more likely hurt efforts instead of helping.

By all means go into a short-term economic depression even (which I don't see as happening from this anyway), if it means avoiding a greater long-term economic cataclysm.


It is odd that you want to make space travel the sole exception to this ban of fossil fuels. However, you might want to think about that for a second. Combustion requires fuel, spark, and oxygen, space has no oxygen. They instead use liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, as that is fuel that works in both atmospheric and space conditions. They also sometimes use a solid propellant, but typical fossil fuels are rarely used for obvious reasons.

On point with the rocket fuel. I'm for space elevator research and development, which theoretically removes the need for such huge rockets all the time.


The fact is is that all of this consensus stuff is b.s. Climate change is not real, and if it is, I rather enjoy the warm weather. A worldwide Florida!!

Anyone ever heard of a weather pattern?

If you believe in the existence of short-term weather and also that it changes with time, why do you not believe in the existence of longer-term climate changes?

Do you have to directly see it to believe it? You got seasons for the weather changes, and you should be realising that those seasons are changing forms from the past because of climate changes.

I could also just go *facepalm* though.


this is perfect example of why conspiracy theories don't belong here.

Some of my viewpoints are (unfortunately) considered irrational conspiracy theories though, so you don't need to assume that I am free from such things.

Anyway, it's not part of the essence of a conspiracy theory to be irrational and unjustified.

Also, I didn't even see a conspiracy theory being said, as there was no theory to speak of - it was a statement.

The phrase "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is similarly not a conspiracy theory. (Please don't take that example to imply anything here, it's only a useful analogy that I am confident you've heard of before.)


Someone is going to start debating with him on this instead of having a real discussion on how to stop this.

As opposed to virtual discussions? Most of ROTW is one person debating with another though, but of course (most of the time) it's about/with viewpoints and their background reasons/ideas.

I'm totally with you though if you're against a person coming into a discussion and say something expected/bound to cause big reaction, with that person then leaving again without giving some reasoning/explanation to what they said. An analogy would be a nonchalant person passing by a room and throwing a grenade in as they cross the door, and then walking away.


They claim a made up consensus means something is automatically right. They constant make the claim that,"97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and dangerous." Which is not true at all.

I care about consensus in so far as a diverse range of scientists have come upon very similar results, from different aspects of geography, meteorology, chemistry, and so on. I'm with the consensus where it is of coherentist justification value.

I don't care at all about consensus to any level of thinking that consensus itself means truth. The consensus means nothing if it's between people of similar background perspective. I can happily dump that percentage claim if it's not accompanied by further statistics, because it is not near enough at all.


I've read varying different surveys about this, and the average number of scientists that support human climate change is closer to 50%. Regardless though, in science, might does not make right. There have been hundreds of scientific theories that were accepted by the majority that have turned out to be wrong.

We can agree though that you're just not accepting any/most views of humanity-caused climate change anyway, with scientific approaches against the views being a bonus for you.


A valid claim based off of scientific evidence is a conspiracy theory, yet claiming that one man will end the world isn't.

What do you mean by one man ending the world?


There's a certain argument to be had with regards to consensus - which a famous SCIENCE paper, asking those who were researchers in that specific area, concluded was about 97% - but the real argument is that time and time again, peer-reviewed journals publish articles that reach the conclusion that human activity makes a significant impact to the change we are currently witnessing.

Originally I had intended to just link to the IPCC's 2013 Summary for Policymakers and Markus Huber & Reto Knutti (2012). But instead what I have gone and done is taken the most recent papers from Nature: Climate Change, the most prestigious journal in its field, and linked to the last number of publications on the specific subject. I did not filter our the ones that disagreed with me, as anyone who does the same will find. In each publication, which I should remind people is peer reviewed by experts in the field, the conclusion reach was that man had a significant role to play.

IPCC (2013), Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf).
Jiafu Mao, et al. (TBP), Human-induced greening of the northern extratropical land surface, Nature: Climate Change, TBP, TBP. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3056.html)
John C. Fyfe et al. (2016), Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 224 - 228. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html)
Sönke Dangendorf (2016), Oceanography: Human influence on sea-level rise, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 661 - 662. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2994.html)
Gerrit Hansen & Dáithí Stone (2016), Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change, Nature: Climate Change, 6, pp. 532 - 537. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2896.html)
Aimée B. A. Slangen, John A. Church, Cecile Agosta, Xavier Fettweis, Ben Marzeion & Kristin Richter (2016), Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970, Nature: Climate Change, 5, pp. 701 - 705. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2991.html)
Mohammad Reza Najafi, Francis W. Zwiers & Nathan P. Gillett (2015), Attribution of Arctic temperature change to greenhouse-gas and aerosol influences, Nature: Climate Change, 5, pp. 246–249. (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2524.html)
Duo Chan & Qigang Wu (2015), Significant anthropogenic-induced changes of climate classes since 1950, Scientific Reports, 5, article number: 13487. (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487)
Markus Huber & Reto Knutti (2012), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature GeoScience, 5, pp. 31 - 36. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html)

Enjoy.

Your presence is appreciated, as always.


What valid claim? Its proven fact that man made climate change is happening and we have to do something about it now.

In fairness every known fact is claimed, so in this case it's also a valid claim. It being a fact doesn't transcend it from it being claimed as such. You claim that it's a proven fact, you can't say otherwise.

(This is not how I support viewpoints, as you might guess.)




Hydroelectric: Requires to be located close to a river, and most of the time the production of a dam with turbines. This can hurt local wildlife by blocking river routes and causing increased evaporation of the river, which can hurt cities and habitats downstream.

Geothermal: Requires you to be close to a geothermal hotspot, which are not common. I believe the only country in the world that has ever used geothermal power practically has been Iceland, in which produces 80% of all energy from it. And that is because the whole island is consists 130 volcanoes.
Solar: Requires a large surface area to be practical, so acres upon acres are needed for just a small town. This can destroy natural habitats. Solar panels themselves are expensive and somewhat dangerous to make, and require a considerable amount of upkeep. Will not be very effective in cloudy areas, and obviously wouldn't work at night.
Wind: Similar space requirements as solar panels. There is also a possibility that wind turbines kill a large amount of birds, I'm not sure about that. Expensive to make, considerable upkeep, and only effectively work in windy areas.
Hydrogen: Despite being the most abundant element, hydrogen is rarely found naturally in it's elemental form on Earth. To produce it, electrolysis is done to water, which requires a considerable amount of electricity. Even once obtained, elemental hydrogen will effectively weaken and destroy most all metals it comes in contact with, which limits it's usage considerably.
Biofuels: It is ironic that climate change supporters always claim that denying scientists are being bribed by fossil fuel companies, when the agriculture farmers are doing the exact same to the supporters. Biofuels, like ethanol, are the by product of plants, typically corn. This results in both raising food prices(which is why farmers are so for global warming) and resulting in increased farmlands. While ethanol can replace gasoline as fuel, it is far less effective than gasoline. As someone who works on cars, I can tell you that ethanol is awful on injectors and carburetors.

That got really long:P

Great list, no sarcam intended. I am totally against biofuels if they come from deforestation, as that goes against their point entirely.

As for the rest, it demonstrates how all technology has disadvantages, even when we factor out the exherent short-term/small-scale economic disadvantages (which are all of a lesser deal than the future with climate change will be). Have you considered looking at the disadvantages of fossil fuel extraction, as openly as you have with the technologies here?


Yep! All too often I see liberals pushing their opinion as proven fact, and forcing others to accept it.

These pesky liberals! How inconvenient they are here, but with the exception of how convenient they are as one unified target that is our sole enemy, of course.

This can make it possible for me to see you bringing politics into any and all viewpoints, which might explain what you said in that The Future of the American Left and Right thread.

PlasmaHam
September 25th, 2016, 08:21 PM
Great list, no sarcam intended. I am totally against biofuels if they come from deforestation, as that goes against their point entirely.

As for the rest, it demonstrates how all technology has disadvantages, even when we factor out the exherent short-term/small-scale economic disadvantages (which are all of a lesser deal than the future with climate change will be). Have you considered looking at the disadvantages of fossil fuel extraction, as openly as you have with the technologies here?
Oh, I totally agree with you, I don't believe I made clear my intentions with this list. I was simply explaining that renewable energy is not the perfect solution that many people think it is. I know there are disadvantages to fossil fuels, I just didn't include them since those should be pretty obvious by now, and I wanted to focus on renewable energy sources. I have a personal interest in energy production, and I am all for renewable energy. However, I feel that doing a quick and immediate ban on fossil fuels like mattsmith48 suggested is not the answer. However, thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't intentionally trying to hide information.
These pesky liberals! How inconvenient they are here, but with the exception of how convenient they are as one unified target that is our sole enemy, of course.

This can make it possible for me to see you bringing politics into any and all viewpoints, which might explain what you said in that The Future of the American Left and Right thread.
Hey, I was just continuing the conversation that you started:P. That earlier post sounds worse now that you've pointed it out. I see how you can see that the wrong way. However, as you noticed, beyond that little quote I have spoken less about politics than most of the people on this thread.

Flapjack
September 26th, 2016, 01:28 PM
PlasmaHam you missed one of my posts again :P


Here is a link from the right-wing extremist group know as NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses), I'm not sure if you have ever heard of them. Anyhow, their study has shown that the Antarctic Ice Cap is gaining billions of tons of ice and snow every year, fall more than the lost from glaciers.
A very interesting article and I am very glad that you yourself accept that NASA is a source of accurate data as you mentioned in this post that you tried to find it.

Because of how awesome and accurate NASA is... I think you'll enjoy this (http://climate.nasa.gov/)and this (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)


To start off, here is basically an admission by one of the leading climate change organizations in the world, admitting that the climate model they have been using for decades is seriously flawed. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/) If people who's jobs depend on pushing global warming as fact admit this, then there are some pretty obvious issues. A major climate scientist said that the evidence points towards climate models over the last 6 decades are flawed. They even wrote a little paper (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf) on it.
Sooo your next 'accurate source' is a politically conservative news and opinion website. Whoop whoop!! xD With such a great reputation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dominican-official-links-daily-caller-to-alleged-lies-about-menendez/2013/03/22/d81470d0-930a-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html).

I have read that paper and it talks about how the climate change model predicts too hot too fast which is a fair criticism although I would be more willing to believe it if it was more accepted in the scientific community.

It doesn't deny human influenced climate change.

Do you not believe the millions donated by the fossil fuel industry to right-wing politicians (and some lefties) would influence their opinions?

I believe you are cherry-picking reports and data but don't worry I can do the same.... and there is a lil more science on climate change's side.

35 facts about climate change (http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-climate-change-facts-php)
More facts (https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/climate_change_facts.pdf)
Oh look some more! (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/)
Found a few more (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/climate_change/facts/en/)

Should I mention these all came up on the first page of google?

Do you know what causes climate change?
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

The sun cannot explain our current temperature increases.

Do you not believe in the greenhouse effect? It is not that complicated to understand... here is a diagram they use to explain to kids... hope it helps.
http://alltaskstraducoes.com.br/vdisk/27/diagram-of-the-greenhouse-effect-for-kids-i16.jpg

Also, if you guys would ever actually do some research, then it is a pretty known facts that scientists admit that there hasn't been any global warming over the last 20 years, and they have no idea why. Which is odd, because most of your graphs seemed to have depicted warming during the 1990s and 2000s,which by the current data never happened.Cough climate myth (http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm) cough xD
That moment when you say others don't research and then say something a quick google search can disprove.
Source 2 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/)
Research reported in July 2015 on an updated NOAA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA) dataset[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Karl15-1)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Ars_homogenization-3) casts doubt on the existence of a hiatus, and it finds no indication of a slowdown even in earlier years.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-NCDC_NOAA-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-NPR-doubt-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Guardian-NoHiatus-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-15) Scientists working on other datasets welcomed this study, though they have expressed they view that the recent warming trend was less than in previous periods of the same length.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-BBC-valid-17) Subsequently, a detailed study supports the conclusion that warming is continuing, but it also find there was less warming between 2001 and 2010 than climate models had predicted, and that this slowdown might be attributed to short-term variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation) (PDO), which was negative during that period.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Dai_et_al_2015-18)[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-Fyfe_et_al_2016-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-20) Another review finds "no substantive evidence" of a pause in global warming.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-21)[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-WaPo_24Nov15-22) A statistical study of global temperature data since 1970 concludes that the term 'hiatus' or 'pause' is not justified.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-23)Source 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus)


Here is also something interesting (https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp). Apparently, there is considerable evidence that the Earth has undergone drastic climate changes in the past, with some being in only a decade.I agree it is interesting but it doesn't help your debate xD
What causes abrupt climate change?
Current theories on the cause of abrupt climatic change focus on sudden shut downs and start-ups of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation), which is a global network of density-driven ocean currents. The Meridional Overturning Circulation transports a tremendous amount of heat northward, keeping the North Atlantic and much of Europe up to 9°F (5°C) warmer, particularly in the winter. A sudden shut down of this current would have a ripple effect throughout the ocean-atmosphere system, forcing worldwide changes in ocean currents, and in the path of the atmospheric jet stream. Studies of North Atlantic Ocean sediments have revealed that the Meridional Overturning Circulation has shut down many times in the past, and that many of these shut downs coincide with the abrupt climate change events noted in the Greenland ice cores.

Vlerchan
September 26th, 2016, 06:38 PM
same!

what's your opinion on this phenomenon?
Liberalism has an inherent homogonising component because it is universalist. It is universalist because it believes itself to be borne of fundamental truths. I don't have an issue with that: I'd define civilisation as the belief that truth exists and ones own culture approximates this truth - if ones believes in the fundamental value of truth then it becomes difficult to not believe it should be spread.

The important distinction - and this is what separates civilising thought from barbarism (such as Islamism - also homogonising and universalist) - is that Liberalism leaves itself open to the chance that it's prescriptions might be in error (that's the basis of checks and balances - and accountable representative office). Thus civilising missions that are required to be pursued through acts of force should be requires to pass a high bar of as far as our confidence in the virtue of the idea is understood.

Most liberals squirm at the idea of such a colonialist mindset. I am at least honest I hold it - and will call other liberals out on it.

---

N.B: whilst in the responses to mattsmith I used Liberalism to refer to his brand of left-Liberalism I use Liberalism here to refer to post-Enlightenment democratic-internationalist politics.

phuckphace
September 26th, 2016, 10:28 PM
Liberalism has an inherent homogonising component because it is universalist. It is universalist because it believes itself to be borne of fundamental truths. I don't have an issue with that: I'd define civilisation as the belief that truth exists and ones own culture approximates this truth - if ones believes in the fundamental value of truth then it becomes difficult to not believe it should be spread.

(bold) yeah, makes perfect sense.

I'm of the opinion that while universal truth exists, my conception of it should stop at the borders of the territory that I rule directly, out of a certain sense of fairness + the desire to practice what I preach: since I wouldn't want another culture's values to be foisted on me, I shouldn't foist it on them.

The important distinction - and this is what separates civilising thought from barbarism (such as Islamism - also homogonising and universalist) - is that Liberalism leaves itself open to the chance that it's prescriptions might be in error (that's the basis of checks and balances - and accountable representative office).

this is one of the main reasons I miss the Old Left. I think we both know that lowercase-L liberalism in the American sense has abandoned any premise of self-critique - there's an overwhelming consensus of "it's been settled, now get with the times bigots."

by contrast your uppercase-L Liberalism is far more tolerable, not least because of those checks and balances, but unfortunately in the current year the idea has largely been confined to paper and internet posts. in real life the New Left would assemble its own NKVD the moment it got the chance.

Thus civilising missions that are required to be pursued through acts of force should be requires to pass a high bar of as far as our confidence in the virtue of the idea is understood.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were very confident that Saddam had nukes, I hear (sorry I had to :P )

Most liberals squirm at the idea of such a colonialist mindset. I am at least honest I hold it - and will call other liberals out on it.

hashtag Vlerchan Cru for a reason, fam.

PlasmaHam
September 27th, 2016, 09:15 AM
Flapjack, due to your numerous attempts at baiting and trolling me across the debate forums, I am not going to continue this debate. Trolling like you have done is obviously against the rules, and I am not going to debate with you if you believe that breaking site rules is the proper way to conduct a debate.

Paraxiom
September 30th, 2016, 04:36 PM
Oh, I totally agree with you, I don't believe I made clear my intentions with this list. I was simply explaining that renewable energy is not the perfect solution that many people think it is.

It's unwise to see any solution to any problem as perfect, methinks.


I know there are disadvantages to fossil fuels, I just didn't include them since those should be pretty obvious by now, and I wanted to focus on renewable energy sources. I have a personal interest in energy production, and I am all for renewable energy. However, I feel that doing a quick and immediate ban on fossil fuels like mattsmith48 suggested is not the answer. However, thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't intentionally trying to hide information.

Alright.


Hey, I was just continuing the conversation that you started:P. That earlier post sounds worse now that you've pointed it out. I see how you can see that the wrong way. However, as you noticed, beyond that little quote I have spoken less about politics than most of the people on this thread.

I don't think I started a liberal-conservative angle on this conversation though.
That you're mentioning politics less is questionable, but I'll move on from this...

mattsmith48
October 6th, 2016, 09:31 AM
Flapjack, due to your numerous attempts at baiting and trolling me across the debate forums, I am not going to continue this debate. Trolling like you have done is obviously against the rules, and I am not going to debate with you if you believe that breaking site rules is the proper way to conduct a debate.

If Flapjack is trolling, you are spamming us with your BS and conspiracy theories

Periphery
October 6th, 2016, 10:01 AM
Flapjack, due to your numerous attempts at baiting and trolling me across the debate forums, I am not going to continue this debate. Trolling like you have done is obviously against the rules, and I am not going to debate with you if you believe that breaking site rules is the proper way to conduct a debate.

Report and ignore it if you don't like it m8, it's the internet

PlasmaHam
October 12th, 2016, 10:48 PM
If Flapjack is trolling, you are spamming us with your BS and conspiracy theories

Report and ignore it if you don't like it m8, it's the internet
I try to be respectful, so I sent Flapjack off with a warning. I'm a nice guy so I try to give warnings before I report people. Anyways, Flapjack responded to that post with even more trolling and spam, so I did report him, and the mods stopped the spam.

Also MattSmith, that is class, I haven't even seen you respond with any legit argument against my posts, yet you claim to be 100% right. Well, I have a challenge. I want you, not anyone else, to analyze these videos I'm about to post, and respond with a reasonable, factual, written argument that proves catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is real. I would normally write an argument, but since you seem so confident in your stance that you would insult me, I decide to just give you the videos. If you expect me to take your claims serious, I want you to write an original and scientific counter-argument that completely destroys both this post and my previous. I'll be waiting.
SSrjAXK5pGw
3PWtaackIJU
OwqIy8Ikv-c
Also, this is a warning. Continue to troll and call me and my posts BS and other insulting terms and I won't hesitate to report you.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 01:33 AM
I try to be respectful, so I sent Flapjack off with a warning. I'm a nice guy so I try to give warnings before I report people. Anyways, Flapjack responded to that post with even more trolling and spam, so I did report him, and the mods stopped the spam.

It was taking down for being a repeat post tho not spam xD

Also MattSmith, that is class, I haven't even seen you respond with any legit argument against my posts, yet you claim to be 100% right. Well, I have a challenge. I want you, not anyone else, to analyze these videos I'm about to post, and respond with a reasonable, factual, written argument that proves catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is real. I would normally write an argument, but since you seem so confident in your stance that you would insult me, I decide to just give you the videos. If you expect me to take your claims serious, I want you to write an original and scientific counter-argument that completely destroys both this post and my previous. I'll be waiting. @MattSmith (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=116044) don't bother xD I already obliterated him (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3439525&postcount=70)here disproving all his climate change conspiracy theories and he never responded xD

Also, this is a warning. Continue to troll and call me and my posts BS and other insulting terms and I won't hesitate to report you.
I get people calling your posts BS may be upsetting buddy but no one is trolling you xD If you want a safespace free from opposing ideas, then don't debate! :P

Babs
October 13th, 2016, 05:34 AM
Fun fact: even though Venus is closer to the sun, Mercury is hotter because of the greenhouse effect. So, yeah, we actually do have an observable example of climate change/global warming.

mattsmith48
October 13th, 2016, 09:03 AM
I try to be respectful, so I sent Flapjack off with a warning. I'm a nice guy so I try to give warnings before I report people. Anyways, Flapjack responded to that post with even more trolling and spam, so I did report him, and the mods stopped the spam.

Also MattSmith, that is class, I haven't even seen you respond with any legit argument against my posts, yet you claim to be 100% right. Well, I have a challenge. I want you, not anyone else, to analyze these videos I'm about to post, and respond with a reasonable, factual, written argument that proves catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is real. I would normally write an argument, but since you seem so confident in your stance that you would insult me, I decide to just give you the videos. If you expect me to take your claims serious, I want you to write an original and scientific counter-argument that completely destroys both this post and my previous. I'll be waiting.
SSrjAXK5pGw
3PWtaackIJU
OwqIy8Ikv-c
Also, this is a warning. Continue to troll and call me and my posts BS and other insulting terms and I won't hesitate to report you.

Ive already told you Im not going to debate conspiracy theories, the debate is not about if its real or not, the debate is how can we stop it.

Fun fact: even though Venus is closer to the sun, Mercury is hotter because of the greenhouse effect. So, yeah, we actually do have an observable example of climate change/global warming.

Another fun fact about Venus is about 50km above the surface the temperature is lower enough so humans could live there and would just need a source of oxygen and protection from sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. Since it looks like were not planning on doing anything to stop climate change, we should start colonizing Venus so we know what to do and how to do it when the surface of this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 03:57 PM
If Flapjack is trolling, you are spamming us with your BS and conspiracy theories

Have you considered my take on your take on conspiracy theories?


I want [MattSmith], not anyone else, to analyze these videos I'm about to post, and respond with a reasonable, factual, written argument that proves catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming is real.

Noted - I won't analyse.


Fun fact: even though Venus is closer to the sun, Mercury is hotter because of the greenhouse effect. So, yeah, we actually do have an observable example of climate change/global warming.

Swap Venus with Mercury, and you're right.


Ive already told you Im not going to debate conspiracy theories, the debate is not about if its real or not, the debate is how can we stop it.

Your opponent in a debate can't, won't and shouldn't engage with you in how to stop a thing X, if they have already said that they don't perceive X's existence.

The debate here is actually about if X is a thing, rather than fast-tracking to anything else about X.


Since it looks like were not planning on doing anything to stop climate change, we should start colonizing Venus so we know what to do and how to do it when the surface of this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Humanity-drive climate change is never going to trigger anything within an order of magnitude of Venus' climate.

This shouldn't make any difference to treating humanity-driven climate change as serious though.