Pages:
Author

Topic: What is environmentalism, really? - page 7. (Read 7902 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
August 09, 2012, 04:36:46 PM
#68
TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
#67
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
August 09, 2012, 04:13:15 PM
#66
Making up whatever shit it takes to justify harming humans.

Much different than conservationism.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 04:09:46 PM
#65
TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 04:03:30 PM
#63
TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them.

This entire site is well written bunk.  Let me just address the first 20...

Quote
"Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.  

Based upon what assumptions?  Their links don't really say, the larger link is just more conjecture.  

Quote
2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  


Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?
Quote
3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Quote
4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Quote
5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

Quote
6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.


While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

Quote

7 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.  

Yes, and they don't agree with each other.  Traditionally, the surface measurements are used in the computer models because there is simply more data than sats, but the surface monitors can be screwed with by changes in the immediate environment they reside, which is why they are the unreliable set to use.  Sat data does not, and has not, reported the same degree of warming, although they have reported some warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Quote
8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  


Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Quote
9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.  

No contest here.

Quote
10 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.  

Sure, does not mean that climate change is human caused.

Quote
11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  


CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Quote

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  


The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

Quote
13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

 And contradicted by many others.

Quote
14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Quote
15 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.  


Sure, and so did Acid Rain when I was a younger man.  Didn't really pan out, did it?

Quote
16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.
Quote
17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  


Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Quote
18 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

No contest here.

Quote
19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

Quote
20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
0xFB0D8D1534241423
August 09, 2012, 02:04:58 PM
#62
I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

I'm confused, so I going to ask this...

Which one of them are you talking too?  Or are you talking to both?
I was talking to FirstAscent
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
August 09, 2012, 01:16:31 PM
#61
TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
August 09, 2012, 01:11:55 PM
#60
TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
August 09, 2012, 12:50:40 PM
#59
This thread is what I'm talking about. Powerful energy interests have joined the "debate" for their own profit. I can't understand why people would listen to the likes of paid oil industry shills and loudmouth idiots like Rush, while ignoring real scientists who actually study this stuff.   Why do you think the energy companies pay them? Because they want to build a better future? Please, they never look past the next fiscal quarter?

Real scientists are paid to find the truth. What that truth may be is not important, science is the process. But, for enough money I could find you a "scientist" who believes smoking is good for you.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 09, 2012, 01:41:59 AM
#58
Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.

translation: "You're absolutely right, but I prefer my illusions, thank you."

Very well, I will leave you to your illusions, carry on.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
August 09, 2012, 01:39:41 AM
#57
The last two posts are beginning to show the limits to the depth of your investigations into the environment. No more for now.

TheBitcoinChemist: you need to learn more about species, extinction events, and biodiversity. In your last post, you definitely showed a limit to your understanding. I can recommend some books for you later. Oh, and as for habitat relocation, it's not about outrunning - it's about hitting insurmountable barriers while moving. On a mildly related note, are you familiar with The Great Amphibian Dying?

Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 09, 2012, 01:27:46 AM
#56
In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.

Not at all. Environmentalists claim to care about the Earth. That's a load of bull, and I'm just showing that fact. If you only cared about the Earth, you wouldn't be worried. It's going to take a lot more than a few degrees one way or the other to sterilize this ball of rock we live on. What you're worried about is the status quo. Shit changes. That is the only constant. Deal with it.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 01:21:10 AM
#55
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
August 09, 2012, 01:19:25 AM
#54
In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 09, 2012, 01:16:11 AM
#53
In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
August 09, 2012, 01:12:10 AM
#52
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 01:05:25 AM
#51
I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

I'm confused, so I going to ask this...

Which one of them are you talking too?  Or are you talking to both?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
August 09, 2012, 01:04:01 AM
#50
TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 09, 2012, 12:49:36 AM
#49
Myrkul, run along. At least TheBitcoinChemist can put together something a little more sincere and thoughful.

Aww, But you're so much fun to fuck with!

FWIW, I agree with TheBitcoinChemist. Global Warming, anthropogenic or not, is no big thing. Earth has been significantly warmer, even within human history, than it is now. Life will carry on. New York may not, but Life will.
Pages:
Jump to: