Global Warming

[twinkletoes]

I am sorry but that is a good example of bollockspeak.

Don't apologise liberal hippy douche.

Thanks, you luddite monkey hanger.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Such a strange thing to call someone a luddite.

 

[Skashion]

So liberal hippy douche answer me the following:

1. If we do not know the negative anthropogenic forcings, how do we know what to do to mitigate climate change?
2. Is it even desirable? Is there not a debate to be had on whether it's actually better to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than climate change itself?
3. Do you not understand why the alarmism of the likes of Damocles is offputting? Damocles for instance, has spoken of the 60m rises if the Antartic ice sheets melt. That would take several millennia. Given the rate of human development, it's fucking absurd to scaremonger about effects thousands of years into the future. It took less than seventy years to go from first flight to man on the moon. The invention of the transistor is accelerating our technological development at an enormous rate. Quantum computing will in all likelihood do that further. As will nano technology and biological engineering. Yet, even though we know of our own ability to impact the climate now, the assumption is being made that we won't have far more control over our impact thousands of years in the future. Does that not strike you as odd?

 

[twinkletoes]

Such a strange thing to call someone a luddite.

Is it against the CoC?

I am asking you because you have been banned so often.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Such a strange thing to call someone a luddite.

Is it against the CoC?

I am asking you because you have been banned so often.

What twice, often? Once for no reason at all!

I guess technically it is against the CoC but someone would have to report you

 

[twinkletoes]

So liberal hippy douche answer me the following:

1. If we do not know the negative anthropogenic forcings, how do we know what to do to mitigate climate change?
2. Is it even desirable, is there not a debate to be had on whether it's actually better to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than climate change itself?
3. Do you not understand why the alarmism of the likes of Damocles is offputting? Damocles for instance, has spoken of the 60m rises if the Antartic ice sheets melt. That would take several millennia. Given the rate of human development, it's fucking absurd to scaremonger about effects thousands of years into the future. It took less than seventy years to go from first flight to man on the moon. The invention of the transistor is accelerating our technological development at an enormous rate. Quantum computing will in all likelihood do that further. As will nano technology and biological engineering. Yet, even though we know of our own ability to impact the climate now, the assumption is being made that we won't have far more control over our impact thousands of years in the future. Does that not strike you as odd?

I have a great deal of repect for you as a poster and I dont want to fall out

Damocles and I seem to be two very small voices fighting against the majority on here that dismiss climate change as some sort of government conspiracy.

The argument for climate change is evidence based and cannot be dismissed in such a way. I understand the science isnt water tight but it is compelling and as time passes perhaps we will have more understanding.

I would rather buy a smoke alarm even though I dont think I will have a fire in my house.<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:27 am --<br /><br />

Such a strange thing to call someone a luddite.

Is it against the CoC?

I am asking you because you have been banned so often.

What twice, often? Once for no reason at all!

I guess technically it is against the CoC but someone would have to report you

Am I being paranoid? Or are you out to get me?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

So liberal hippy douche answer me the following:

1. If we do not know the negative anthropogenic forcings, how do we know what to do to mitigate climate change?
2. Is it even desirable, is there not a debate to be had on whether it's actually better to mitigate the effects of climate change rather than climate change itself?
3. Do you not understand why the alarmism of the likes of Damocles is offputting? Damocles for instance, has spoken of the 60m rises if the Antartic ice sheets melt. That would take several millennia. Given the rate of human development, it's fucking absurd to scaremonger about effects thousands of years into the future. It took less than seventy years to go from first flight to man on the moon. The invention of the transistor is accelerating our technological development at an enormous rate. Quantum computing will in all likelihood do that further. As will nano technology and biological engineering. Yet, even though we know of our own ability to impact the climate now, the assumption is being made that we won't have far more control over our impact thousands of years in the future. Does that not strike you as odd?

I have a great deal of repect for you as a poster and I dont want to fall out

Damocles and I seem to be two very small voices fighting against the majority on here that dismiss climate change as some sort of government conspiracy.

The argument for climate change is evidence based and cannot be dismissed in such a way. I understand the science isnt water tight but it is compelling and as time passes perhaps we will have more understanding.

I would rather buy a smoke alarm even though I dont think I will have a fire in my house.

-- Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:27 am --

Is it against the CoC?

I am asking you because you have been banned so often.

What twice, often? Once for no reason at all!

I guess technically it is against the CoC but someone would have to report you

Am I being paranoid? Or are you out to get me?

Im not out top get anyone, im careful now as a marked man of the banned fraternity. So yes i guess you are paranoid?

 

[blueinsa]

Those claiming the science backs it up are missing the fact that we only started recording the weather a few hundred years ago.

Absolutely nothing in the great scheme of things.

I will ask again, what caused the rises and falls that have happened over millions of years because it wasn't us?

 

[brand blue heavies]

Tree rings recently studied from the Roman times suggest the temperatures back then were exactly the same..if not warmer than they are today!

So i summize that this change going on is not entirely man made at all..its a culmination of lots of things both Natural(inc animal farts) and man made pollutants.

Face it. Both sides can argue til the cows come home but the facts remain this is the natural cycle of this planet and whatever we do we are not going to stop it. Man isn`t at fault here but we certainly have the our hands on the temperature dial and were turning it in the wrong direction.

 

[twinkletoes]

Tree rings recently studied from the Roman times suggest the temperatures back then were exactly the same..if not warmer than they are today!

So i summize that this change going on is not entirely man made at all..its a culmination of lots of things both Natural(inc animal farts) and man made pollutants.

Face it. Both sides can argue til the cows come home but the facts remain this is the natural cycle of this planet and whatever we do we are not going to stop it. Man isn`t at fault here but we certainly have the our hands on the temperature dial and were turning it in the wrong direction.

I think Damocles' explanation is easy to understand.

Think of it this way, if an athlete goes from bulky to ripped over the course of a long period, you can say that its probably natural. If an athlete goes from bulky to ripped in six weeks, you can be pretty sure that he's on steroids.

The Earth being the athlete and the steroids are CO2.