Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Putting industries out of business and tanking the economy seem like pretty severe reactions to something you ADMIT you don't have NEARLY enough knowledge on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a fun fact about "scientific concensus".... At one point the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat...
How did that turn out? lol
In the 1970's, the scientific concensus was that we were heading for another ice age... Hmmm
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 19:41:49
insaniak wrote:
YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.
Co'tor Shas wrote: BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.
whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.
Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.
In any scientific "debates"... you need review both sides of the debate.
You have the IPCC, an outfit of the UN, down pat.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Spoiler:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
I'm not taking their exact word, I'm taking the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists. I have read papers from both sides and the denires/skeptics are both in the majority and proven wrong repetedly. Despite what you say, 97% seems like a pretty good consensus. I do admit that I could be wrong, I just don't see any downside for pushing for climate friendly legislation. Green jobs, cleaner air, less pollution, ect. If I'm right and we do nothing however, now that is bad.
Spoiler:
Look at the consenting vs. disenting [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wrong survey wembly. There was no Cook in the authors' names attached to the three surveys I'm getting my info from.
Did you read that link?
Here's a snippet:
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
Again... I'd be leery of bureaucrats demanding regulatory change/money in the name of "Global Warming™"...
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
The worst humans have done is minorly accelerated climate change.
But we really don't have sufficient data to say humans are responsible anyway. My Grandparents were born before any data was collected.
We'd need several thousand years of data to even come close to an accurate picture of the swings in the climate.
Saying 100ish years of data is sufficient is like diagnosing someone with cancer with nothing more than a stethoscope and a tongue depressor.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Mr. Burning wrote: I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Mr. Burning wrote: I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Absolutely.
The devil is always in the details.
@Co'tor Shas: Let's shift this conversation a bit. What would you have us (as in, Americans) do? What are you advocating exactly?
Whether or not our current warming trend is part of a natural cycle, or has been significantly impacted by humanity, they're both the same thing to me. Man cannot exist outside of the natural world; we are a part of it, not apart from it. Anything we do is as natural as any other animal on the planet. It may be destructive, but it's still natural. If we kill ourselves and other life on the planet with our actions as a species, well that's natural too. It's not the first time that a mass extinction has occurred, it won't be the last.
In the end, our species means no more to the cosmos than does the proverbial ant, or the ancient dinosaurs; the solar system will spin on without us, and life will begin anew to try a different evolutionary course. And if it doesn't, well that's natural too.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
Grey Templar wrote: The worst humans have done is minorly accelerated climate change.
But we really don't have sufficient data to say humans are responsible anyway. My Grandparents were born before any data was collected.
We'd need several thousand years of data to even come close to an accurate picture of the swings in the climate.
Saying 100ish years of data is sufficient is like diagnosing someone with cancer with nothing more than a stethoscope and a tongue depressor.
We have thousands of years of data. Ice cores for a start. Plenty of long term climate data, which deniers are so fast to point too when needed. All of it shows that the current warming is way faster than anything that has happend outside of mass extinction events.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 22:03:58
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
What, specifically would you have us do?
Give fact. Evidence that the climate is not warming, or if it is where it is coming from if not from humans? Science?
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
I think you're overlooking the big picture here. The folks who deny climate change would have nothing to fear from it anyway. After all,if the seas threaten to rise and the crops threaten to wither than can protect themselves from those threats with their guns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 21:59:52
Here's a fun fact about "scientific concensus".... At one point the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat...
How did that turn out? lol
The notion that the Earth is flat died out among educated people shortly after science became a nascent thing in Ancient Greece.
So at no point has there been a scientific consensus that the Earth is flat. A lay consensus, sure, but what laypeople think only matters when you have to convince them to back a given cause.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/31 22:11:35
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cool... many universities and private organizations are doing this. I'm always down with this...
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
At the expense of what? If we can find a cheaper/clean alternative... GREAT!
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Who? Got any sources for that?
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Nuke... do you support Nuke plants?
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Worthy goal.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
There's massive industry for that... but continual PSA is a good thing.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
That's exploding in these last few years...
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Erm.. .okay.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Those exists a plenty. Some don't work out as well (ie, Solyndra).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
EPA? feth no. they're powerful enough as it is... may need to be taken down a couple of notches.
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
What, specifically would you have us do?
Give fact. Evidence that the climate is not warming, or if it is where it is coming from if not from humans? Science?
Facts?
IPCC has been wrong on every projection so far...
That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 22:27:52
How old is the planet? Billions of years.
How long have we been keeping records of the earths temerature? Less than 200 years.
What gives any person on this planet the idea that we know what the temperature is supposed to be?
insaniak wrote:
YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
1. So, ding taxpayers because our pockets are apparently bottomless...
2. Good luck getting China & India to play ball, meanwhile, you'd have us blow up our economy and revert back to a pre-industrial quality of life - thanks but no thanks.
3. So again, make rich countries pay, because the developing countries will just laugh at your ideals and continue to ignore you.
4. Sure, ask Ontario how that's worked out...
5. Again, good luck convincing the likes of China, India & Russia.
6. We already do - how's the developing world & third world though?
7. Fine, but good luck keeping the poachers out.
8. We already do, again, the US/Canada/Western Europe aren't the real problem!
9. Again, ask Ontario how that's worked out for the average guy... (hint: it's tanked our economy to the point of now becoming a 'have-not' status province, while sending our energy bills through the perverbial roof!)
whembly:
So you are OK with helping the environment and just don't believe climate change was caused by humans? In that case I have no further quarrel with you .
Hey, EPA is kind of horrible at times, but the NPS is great. They keep all of our great monuments (man-made and natural) safe and allow us to visit places we might not be able to normally. Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore,
that form our wilderness preserves,
That and my dad works there (if you ever wonder why I'm so pro-environment ).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Its astounding that people still come up with "its not cold therefor its not global warming". Its climate change, the ice caps ARE melting faster than they can replenish as it is on average hotter at the poles, the climate IS changing, weather IS more extreme. Some people wont believe it untill it happens with them, and some perts of the media dont help this ignorant frame of mind.
I just hope these stubborn ignorant people dont make the efforts of everyone else futile.
You act as though ice caps were created with the planet and that ice caps are crucial for the earths survival...
insaniak wrote:
YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.
Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly:
So you are OK with helping the environment and just don't believe climate change was caused by humans? In that case I have no further quarrel with you .
Hey, EPA is kind of horrible at times, but the NPS is great. They keep all of our great monuments (man-made and natural) safe and allow us to visit places we might not be able to normally. Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore,
that form our wilderness preserves,
That and my dad works there (if you ever wonder why I'm so pro-environment ).
I have no problem with honest, practical applications in helping the environment.
The things that drive me bonkers are things like "Carbon Tax Credit" scheme and opposition to the Keystone pipeline project. The IPCC fully descredited themselves in pushing the ol' Hocky Stick graph to the point that I reflectively discount everything from them.
That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.
The yellow band, is that the one, two or three sigma region? What's the baseline for the temperature difference? Why did they choose that particular time interval? Considering the variance of the data, is it perhaps a way too short interval to see what they and you claim?
It conveniently doesn't go back as far as 1998 because it would show that we haven't been as warm as that year since, and in order for the agenda to go forward the temerature has to keep going up.
What happened with a those hurricanes we were supposed to get?
Wasnt the US supposed to get nailed with more and with greater severity?
You will have to point out to me exactly where it says they know what temperature the earth is supposed to be... Because I would love to know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 22:52:41
insaniak wrote:
YMDC has plenty of room for discussion veering away from the RAW, particularly in cases like this where what is being put forward as the RAW is absurd.
11k
4K
4k
.
).
3000 points. 
