(January 5, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Stupid, greedy fucks need a spokesman, too. That's where Trump comes in.

My species really pisses me off with it's greed. I had no clue until the series COSMOS how long ago we had solar technology. It also pisses me off that scientist back in the late 1800s had calculated the tipping point of CO2. We've known for a century the path we were going down was destructive.

Trump is a piece of shit for perpetuating a dangerous denial this planet desperately needs to face.

(January 5, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Stupid, greedy fucks need a spokesman, too. That's where Trump comes in.

But it is the stupid, greedy fucks that are taking the rest of us over the cliff with them. They are persistent and influential unapologetically self righteous corporate bastards. And they'll never change in time. We still have smokers and a profitable tobacco industry decades after smoking was shown to be stupid and self destructive. The insistence of some on having the invisible hand take care of everything is so short sighted that we're probably over the edge already. Now the question is just how hard are we going to hit.
I would blame corporations but I think they are not self aware and would not understand the concept of guilt. But the greedy fucks who are running them...That's a different matter.
[written on an oil based plastic cased laptop powered mostly by coal burning steam turbine driven commercial electric power plant---dammit]

Get hold of the movie Soylent Green, Julia. Forget the story and fixate on the background. The Upper 1%'s vision for 'murrica's future.

If you listen to the dipshits who deny climate change, they call it Global Warming. If the scientific community would have started referencing this warming trend as "climate change" people would be able to grasp the concept easier.

I am not talking about the fucktards like trump, but the everyday person who hears trump talk and assumes he knows something. I don't think people understand how a rise in "global" temperature affects the "global" climate.

Before you respond, I know...they are idiots and will only believe what they are told by Faux News anyway

Erm, actually it was a right-wing political consultant who pushed for the term "climate change" to be used.

(January 5, 2015 at 2:27 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Erm, actually it was a right-wing political consultant who pushed for the term "climate change" to be used.

my bad...not sure why they did...it seems to accurately describe it... but ok

(January 5, 2015 at 10:20 am)Brian37 Wrote: Bullshit, and I will not be nice about this.

Our planet's natural changes are not the issue. 99.9% of Climate scientists are telling us our mass amount of green house gasses are a direct result of burning fossil fuels. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

Corporate crap is what kept lead in gas. Corporate crap is why tobacco companies were able to keep the dangers of smoking from the public. Corporate crap is why Nadar had to drag the car companies to do the right thing.

And the stupid part of your argument is that it still should not matter even if it were in dispute, WHICH IT IS NOT. We still have better energy technology in any case. Burning fossil fuels today is like insisting on using rotary phones in an age of cell phones.

We are damaging our planet with the amount of CO2 and methane gas we burn. Corporate bullshit is simply greed and excuse to keep polluting.

Nasa site Wrote:Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and
tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s
climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas
levels. They also show that in the past, large
changes in climate have happened very quickly,
geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

So the ice cores show that there has also been rapid climate change way back. How do we know that the rapid change we're experiencing is not simply another natural case? Yes I get that we have elevated green house gases. But rapid climate change happened without this level of ghgs in the past.

I don't subscribe to group think so I'm not swayed by your bullshit stat of 99.9%. I want to know how the control for the experiment was conducted. I understand how science works and I dare say better than you. So far all I'm seeing is observations. Now to my discredit I'll admit that I'm ill informed on this topic. But goddamn it show me that this is not a natural case as in the past by eliminating our impact. Do we still get the same result if we eliminate our impact? How can we even do an experiment that eliminates our impact? We don't have another planet running on the same timeline in a parallel universe! HOW DO WE CONTROL FOR THIS TEST!!!!!!!!!

Oh and I'm also not going to be nice. So I'll close by saying egg in your face bitch!

Look - you have a complicated system, you can give a rough estimate from basic physics which tells you how much a certain parameter can in principle affect it, and you find that it is in a dangerous range but the details are very difficult because the system is very complex. The very scientific conclusion from this is to fucking stop messing with that parameter. If you think you need a placebo controlled double blind study to draw any conclusions in this case, it's you who don't understand how science works.

I agree that the scientific conclusion has INDUCTIVE strength. But let's not fuck around and pretend it has DEDUCTIVE strength.

Oh and by the way your attempt to sound smart by mentioning double blind placebo is stupid. Placebos are for medicine and not raw science.

We have no control group for the Earth unless maybe you look at Venus.
We are only going to be able to run the experiment once.

Metaphor:
If you see a gun in your hand and a trustworthy friend tells you it might be loaded and you want to live, it is unwise to point it at your head and pull the trigger.
It is not that the conclusions of the climatologists pointing to anthropogenic climate change are certain, it is that if they are right, then the consequences are so dire that the rational decision is to act to avoid them. Changing the basic nature of culture and especially the economy has a very long lag time. Doubters and deniers are less influential than they were. But by the time we have conclusive evidence for everybody the die will have been irretrievably cast.
I'm stockpiling food. Not because I think the end of the world is definitely coming, but because I believe in plausible scenarios in which this is my best move for me and mine. And because the carrying cost and availability of food stocks is quite low in comparison to my current net worth. Cheap insurance. But it may not be enough. Note: I do not have a bomb shelter.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26...nario.html
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/18/c...or-humans/