SummitPost.org

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever

No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.

whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.

I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.

I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.

I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the Sierra Club's budget, whether they spend more money on conservation or on lobbying against emissions. You ask anyone in San Fran what they'd rather have, Cap and Trade or the dismantling of the Hetch Hetchy Dam (I'm looking in your direction, Boxer and Pelosi), I think the poll would be pretty one-sided.

Of course San Franciscans want electricity and water. I hardly think everyone that lives in the city is an environmentalist. Go ask the same question in the Sierra foothills. Whats your point?

Where does your electricity come from? your water?

There are a lot of people worried about AGW that aren't environmentalists in the more traditional sense. Trying to prove that a lot of the world is confused or hypocritical is practically a tautology. The Sierra club is a terrible example, nobody likes them anymore (esp MLC SC), and those they do recognize shifts in priorities over the years. <-- as per below i am recognizing the diff. between local and national

and 4000 posts? that's just miketx's way of prevent global warming by letting all his "hot air" out here!

Of course San Franciscans want electricity and water. I hardly think everyone that lives in the city is an environmentalist. Go ask the same question in the Sierra foothills. Whats your point?

Where does your electricity come from? your water?

That's the point. They want us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, using less electricity, driving shittier cars, etc, so why doesn't Pelosi set an example for the rest of us?

patssox09 wrote:

Of course San Franciscans want electricity and water. I hardly think everyone that lives in the city is an environmentalist. Go ask the same question in the Sierra foothills. Whats your point?

Where does your electricity come from? your water?

That's the point. They want us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, using less electricity, driving shittier cars, etc, so why doesn't Pelosi set an example for the rest of us?

sorry, I thought you were lecturing us about environmentalists cramming AGW down our throats. I didn't realize this was just a tirade against politicians and cap and trade.

The fun starts already at #2;

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Geological history: 4.572.000.000 years.
Human history (since industrial revolution): 200 years.

100:22860000=0.00000437

This tells us that per year humans release around 50 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere then what would naturally occur dus to mantle outgassing...

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

Of course San Franciscans want electricity and water. I hardly think everyone that lives in the city is an environmentalist. Go ask the same question in the Sierra foothills. Whats your point?

Where does your electricity come from? your water?

That's the point. They want us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, using less electricity, driving shittier cars, etc, so why doesn't Pelosi set an example for the rest of us?

sorry, I thought you were lecturing us about environmentalists cramming AGW down our throats. I didn't realize this was just a tirade against politicians and cap and trade.

neo-environmentalists and AGW => politicians and cap and trade

Shit .... when I was in College, it was predicted that the world would be covered in Glaciers right now, by scientist to, lots of them. I even bought crampons in preparation.

Whatever goes down in Cooopahagen...... it's our ass that is going to hurt.

Guyzo wrote:Shit .Whatever goes down in Cooopahagen...... it's our ass that is going to hurt.

More like what's in the Pocket that hang off your asses!

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever

No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.

whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.

I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.

No I won't be rebuking those points because:

a. many are old fallacies and have been discussed over and over,
b. others are simply irrelevant e.g. all that stuff about wind energy for example,
c. others are just conjecture.

The only points I might give credence to are the ones relating to the CRU, but I have discussed my view there before so won't do it again here. Basically I am awaiting the results of the inquiry.

So your a paleo-environmentalist - snap. Surprised you think some of the points relating to paleo-climate there are in anyway relevant. Anyway, I'm interested, as a paleo-environmentalist, don't you see the problem with these particular statements? -

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

34) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

78 ) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

Every point regarding past climate changes is really irrelevant. If humans were not here regardless of who is at fault, climate change would not matter. Its the fact that we are here in excess a that causes the problem. Plants and animals are much more adaptable than we humans. They dont need their beachfront homes and tv's in every room with satellite television. For them sea level changes, they move inland and adapt. The same cant be said for us humans. 90% of all plant and animal species that have existed on earth are actually extinct. Most go extinct due to climate changes, however we are the first species with the cognitive ability to actually attempt to do something to preserve ourselves. Just a thought...

erykmynn wrote:

fowweezer wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

fowweezer wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:In spite of some repetitions this was a very good list and some of its points are absolutely devastating to AGW. The fact that AGW supporters concentrate on minor repetitions and irrelevancies demonstrate that they don't have any real arguments for AGW, indeed there are none.

No it demonstrates that shooting for nice, round numbers is stupid. 100 is not better than 80 when you have to pad the list to get there. It makes the list look ridiculous and the reporting look biased. I'd be more convinced if they had done a proper job of it.

You can just pick the 50 most devastating arguments, if you want, and try to answer them!

I'm not going to answer them, because I'm not an expert. Maybe they can't be answered. I don't know. If not, well, I guess AGW is a big fraud.

But be honest.....you'd think it was stupid if some liberal rag made a list of "1000 reasons climate change is man-made" and just threw a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks, right?

I think climate change is like god. Everyone's mental picture is wrong, no matter what.

And I think we've all seen the "see what shit sticks" type of articles. Like how animals are depressed or something. In fact you've pretty much summed up the whole yes-agw and no-agw debate, because it's just a lot of shit slinging.

I'd prefer to discuss climate mechanics. But people give fuckall about the boring, sciencey part.


-----------------

you know what would have been a much better article?

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever

Just sayin'

You are suggesting that one should not even discuss what the proponents want to use trillions of dollars for???!

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever

No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.

whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.

I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.

I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.

Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!

truchas wrote:Forecast for Copenhagen.

Heavy snow.

Source

Which used to be not very usual in December, actually a white Christmas was rare!

truchas wrote:

timfoltz wrote:Every point regarding past climate changes is really irrelevant. If humans were not here regardless of who is at fault, climate change would not matter. Its the fact that we are here in excess a that causes the problem. Plants and animals are much more adaptable than we humans. They dont need their beachfront homes and tv's in every room with satellite television. For them sea level changes, they move inland and adapt. The same cant be said for us humans. 90% of all plant and animal species that have existed on earth are actually extinct. Most go extinct due to climate changes, however we are the first species with the cognitive ability to actually attempt to do something to preserve ourselves. Just a thought...

Do you have a television?

lol yes I have one (singular). My point was not that people having televisions and beachfront homes is causing climate change. My point was that it is those commodities which cause any global climate change man-made or otherwise to be much more influential than previous climate changes. I was not attempting to see who has deprived themselves of modern conveniences/luxuries for the benefit of the planet.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever

No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.

whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.

I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.

I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.

Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!

Maybe they figure they'll be off-shore after sea level rise? Those aren't the people I was talking about anyways. IMO saying you're an environmentalist doesn't make you an environmentalist. If you're doing a bad job of being an environmentalist, then you're not an environmentalist.

A lot of environmentalists are realizing that AGW is de-personalizing, and taking emphasis away from more tangible issues. I know you like Nuclear, and the enviros did play a big role in the changed perception of that power source. But without 3 mile island and chernobyl, would they have had nearly as much shit in their diapers?