Global Warming

The scientific community is basically in unison in their support for their belief that man has caused a significant impact on the climate. However, some particularly unintelligent American right wingers disagree. It is of course their right to disagree, from a place of absolutely NO knowledge, understanding, or expertise. That is there right. However, what strikes me as particularly worrying about this is what if they are wrong? The effects of that would be quite serious. However, they would be largely immune from the negative effects of the changes, as American wealth would allow for an easier transition. People would just leave Florida and Arizona, and go to Illinois and the Dakotas, but otherwise their lives would be largely unchanged. However, the underdeveloped(for lack of a better term) countries in the world around the equator, would be crushed by this outcome. So basically the mindless mouth breathers who were so complicit in creating the mess, would be largely free of the consequences.

So my proposal, is that anyone who now openly opposes the position that climate change is a serious threat, should be free to believe whatever they want. However, if they turn out to be proven wrong, they should all kill themselves. Then the destructive outcome of their baseless beliefs would be mitigated. I don't mean a state genocide, as I don't want the government having any more responsibility than they have now. I mean personal responsibility, where people own up to the destructive nature of their beliefs, and end their lives honorably(Japanese style). What does everyone think?

 

If I knew your true identity, I would report you to the FBI for making these statements. That's what I think.

 

You are incorrect, the scientific community is not in unison that humans are the biggest cause of our changing climate. In fact, if you do your own research and stop believing what the left tells you or the right for that matter; you will discover that we, humans, play a minimal role in the changing climate. I have posted on this site many links to research and studies that support this view. While we may have had an insignificant impact on the current changes in the climate; the research indicates that natural causes are more significant. And, even the research that shows we have had an impact also show any changes we make will have an insignificant effect on changing the climate over the next 1000's of years.

 

If the world gets warmer, that would unfreeze trillions of acres in Greenland, Alaska, Russia, and Canada and people could move there. Isn't that a good thing?

 

This statement is virtually meaningless. Who is the "scientific community", exactly? Are they in unison or "basically" in unison? What it this "significant impact" man has had the global climate system?

Put down the booze.

 

No because the melting of the glaciers and snow will make water levels rise, putting many areas, especially coasts, under water. I don't think it would balance out, and it would destroy a lot of property regardless.

 

Passive aggressive much? As other people have noted, not everyone concurs that global warming is something to worry about or is caused by humans. Apart from this, aren't you focusing on the government too much? While you can critic the government, that isn't going to change anything. The real question should be, if you are concerned about global warming, how are you educating yourself and changing the current trend of pollution that affects (possibly only minimally) our climate? Yes, people can believe anything they want. And yes, other people can freely critique those beliefs. But what is that truly solving if no actions are being committed? Sure, look to the government and critique them, but then look at yourself and critique your actions.

 

And what would their response be? You make far more offensive and inflammatory statements in almost every post you make. And to be fair, of all the people in the world, there are few who I care less what they think. So best not to end your posts with such statements.

- - - Updated - - -

Where is the language "the biggest cause of our changing climate" used in my post? Try again. You have unthinkingly bought into corporatist propaganda, which is fine. Just take responsibility for your baseless beliefs once they prove to be untrue, that is all I am saying....

 

......

 

I was slightly drunk when I wrote this, but all I want is for people to be responsible for their irresponsible beliefs and political actions. Europeans and Americans have spent the last few centuries going around the world destroying whatever they saw fit, and then leaving the rest of the world to deal with the consequences of their destructive actions. I just want them to take responsibility for their destructive actions. Seems reasonable, no?

 

Conservatives are a cult. Science and education is all a large liberal conspiracy to them. Telling conservatives global warming does exist is like telling Tom Cruise Xenu didn't nuke tons of people in a volcano 75 million years ago. They cannot comprehend it because their ideologies are so ingrained in their uneducated heads.

 

It is not the end game thats an issue, it is the speed of the transition that is our greatest threat.

 

Sorry but I make statements that are based on Scientific Fact. Because, there is no Scientific Proof that supports the statement that humans are the cause of the climate change. It is a hypothesis based on computer models and not based on past climate and glacier cycles. These are not inflammatory statements they are factual statements. and not based on "corporatist propaganda" but on science and research.. Your statements are based on propaganda of the Government and "Corporations" that will benefit from green science and increased costs and taxes on gas, coal and electric. Duh.

There is no proof that if we decrease our use of fossil fuels we can significantly stop climate change or what use to be referred to as "global warming". There is no scientific proof we can significantly alter it. All of the research and studies are purely a hypothesis.

Instead of trying to "change the normal cycle of the climate, weather; we need to find ways to live with the inevitable changes.

You are a sheeple.

 

This is quite simply the stupidest nonsense in the entire world!! Seriously. It is embarrassingly idiotic. In the world of the right, they do not even understand how political influence works. They think that green energy companies (you know those giants of industry ) are able to influence the entirety of the scientific community on climate, but energy companies wield little to no influence..... It is quite simply retarded. There is no other way of putting it. It is like talking about food policy, and claiming that studies which show fat to be bad for you, are simply the result of the influence of raw foods advocates, and their insidious propaganda!! Wake up!!! The amount of money on the one side of the issue is enormous, on the other it is comparably very moderate. Yet we are to believe, if we listen to uninformed right wingers, that it is actually money that is driving the issue, but it is on the side of promoting the evidence for man influenced climate change. Stop for a second, and think about how ridiculous that is. I say this, because this is a very common meme on the right, and it is a particularly stupid one.

 

We set new record low temperatures for March yesterday and today in my area. Some global warming!

 

Australia set new record highs in January - So much for no global warming

 

What's irresponsible about being skeptical?

 

Nothing clearly. If people are skeptical, and they use that skepticism to productive ends, that is great. This issue isn't about productive skepticism for 99% of people. Energy company money has been used to propagandize, and turn this into a partisan issue (which it isn't). So 99 out of 100 people who are skeptical, are skeptical because they are partisan hacks who buy into whatever right wing propaganda they are fed.

On the contrary, I do not listen to Democratic propaganda vehicles in the same way. I think cap and trade is an awful idea. I simply listen to the scientists who are experts in the field, who are basically in unison on this issue. I know you questioned what that meant, and it means that an overwhelming majority of experts in climate science believe man has a significant impact on climate. Seeing as I am in no way an expert on climate science, and do not have the necessary tools in place to become one in a practical amount of time, it makes perfect sense for me to appeal to an authority in the matter. The overwhelming majority of actual authorities are in agreement. The right needs to cite geologists, chemists, and high school science teachers to dishonestly pad the numbers of scientists who are in their camp.

Anyways, the point is the skepticism doesn't seem to be based on anything for most people. And their skepticism is not just skepticism. It has real practical impacts, and impacts policy decisions and more importantly individual decisions. I come on here to find people bragging about their SUV and all the energy they waste, as if that is some sort of great accomplishment. I am fine with skepticism, but if your hostility to an idea, has severe negative consequences on the entire globe, I feel like you should hold yourself accountable for those actions. However, if a person is just skeptical, but lives their life in an economic fashion which is environmentally friendly, then obviously this does not apply.

PS. I was also obviously exaggerating for effect.

 

Sounds like a very even-handed analysis...

The global "climate" system is an aggregation of all the physical, chemical, and biological processes on the Earth interacting over time. In order to be an "expert" in the study of this vast and complex system, one would require expertise in numerous fields within science. These self-appointed "climate experts" are mostly just glorified physicists who want to feel extra special about themselves.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that geology and chemistry were irrelevant to the study of the global climate system...

Just so you know, geologists and chemists are both formally trained scientists with a strong basis in mathematics and physics. Geologic and chemical processes over time are indeed components, very significant ones, within the global "climate" system. And it's not just these lowly geologists and chemists who are speaking out, it is dozens of experts spanning multiple fields. Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever are two eminent physicists that openly dispute the so-called "consensus" among self-described "climatologists".

You are "wasting" energy right now.

 

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming and anyone promoting otherwise is either stupid and/or mendacious and belong in the same category as holocaust deniers and moon hoaxers.

 

and here we see the willingness to debate openly and freely that the left typically shows.. no attempt to shut down the debate at all

Me, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know. I'm no scientist nor have I searched for any information recently, and frankly, it's not one of the issues I really care about either. But, I'm more on the side that we are actually making an impact. And as such I believe carbon taxes are in order no?

 

There is no debate as far as I'm concerned so for anyone to attempt to enlist me in their debate doesn't work.

I also don't have any political affiliation with any 'party' and don't play the 'sides' game other than having nothing much but scorn for what passes as US conservative thought circa 2013.

 

obviously there is a debate; you just don't want there to be one, which is what I said.

I'm not american, so I'm not either republican or democrat. But we are on different sides regardless of that, and so are all (or most); it's just the priorities and mindsets that define each side, in my view. It's not about picking a side just because.

 

We should overthrow this decades-old dictatorship of Zero-Growth Gurus. Freeing development without having to conform to their fake theories would bring widespread prosperity. What they want is absolute and hopeless poverty for the 99% and prosperity for the 1%. Yes, despite their pretense of being against the ruling class, they are the spoiled sheltered heirheads who should have been guillotined centuries ago. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty.

There is a whole continent out there, begging for development. Antarctica has a land mass equivalent to the contiguous 48 American states. Millions of years ago, this land was in a tropical zone and laid down biomass to create enough oil to supply us with cheap energy for centuries. But in the 50s, under pressure from the monopolists, it was restricted from being developed at all. It is also stocked with abundant coal and minerals.

The ruling class only works one way, their way. Environmentalism, which wouldn't exist at all if it didn't exclusively benefit the 1%, is nothing but hoarding. Developing the world's presently restricted resources will drive down prices and profits, which are totally manipulated by the few people who monopolize the power to do that. Environmental alarmists are either agents for this hoarding or fools who believe in their gurus' poses of humanitarian concern and scientific ability.

Notice I said "ability," not knowledge. These second-raters come from the minor-league sciences. They are B students jealous of A students. Knowing that they are inferior, they are subconsciously driven to take out their revenge on creative scientists by discrediting them with slanted and inadequate data that "prove," if they can say it loud enough and all in one voice, that all the inventions of the modern era have wrecked the Earth. The Warmie alarmists must be put in their place and go back to sweeping the floor in the laboratories of the productive geniuses. They are jealous and degenerate misfits who are a curse on civilization.

 

Sure, so long as in the meantime, Man-made Global Warming advocates like yourself actually do what one would think you'd do if you truly believed what you were saying.

If I thought we were killing our planet and only death and destruction are in our future, I sure as hell wouldn't be still driving my car around, turning on my heat, buying tons of crap from stores, buying plane tickets, etc.

I would give up my job, sell all my stuff, and buy only what it would take for me to live in the wild, where I would live in a cave, hunting and gathering for sustenance. In an extreme case, I would kill myself so that there would at least be one less human being saturating this planet.

Instead, you people live your lives just like any others, except you assuage your guilt by buying a few neat new lightbulbs, switching to hybrids, and making dip-(*)(*)(*)(*)s of yourselves on message boards.

So until any of you yahoos actually have the balls to live your lives guilt-free, and not simply hide behind a few tricks to make yourselves look good, don't ask any skeptics to do anything if it's proven that you are right.