DeNiro Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Ending fossil fuel consumption by 2100? Cool. Only 900 years after all oil is ridden of the earth. Harper will still be leading Canada by then because he's a robot and robots don't die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Bill Burr has an interesting solution starting at around 4:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmCcRjgigQU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. No it can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovesLikeDatsyuk Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Climates balance themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Climates balance themselves. Do you like nightmares? I bet your first name is Freddy. Actually if Obama thinks it's a nightmare I wonder if we can move this climate change thing along a little faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I've said it before and I'll say it again, capitalism as we know it and the climate agenda cannot coexist. Taking climate change seriously means that we must seriously change everything — our way of life and our economic structures. Doing what needs to be done means drastic government intervention on a global scale because the very habitability of the planet depends on it. This is of course, anathema to the climate denier crowd. Those folks know that the global economy is created by and fully reliant upon the burning of fossil fuels and that this dependency can't be changed with a few minor market changes here and there. If this true, we are doomed. This will not change in our lifetimes or our childrens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 If this true, we are doomed. This will not change in our lifetimes or our childrens. It kinda helps when going doom and gloom to give some sort of accurate portrayal of things. I maintain scepticism because I'm aware we don't know nearly as much about climate as doomsday environmentalists want to make it seem like.. for obvious political reasons. If we did we'd be able to remove the veil of vaguery and give an accurate depiction of events to come. Right now the global warming movement looks more like an attention whore floundering around to be noticed in order to stay relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Climates balance themselves. The expert speaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Paging George Carlin. Please report to this thread with your plastic sketch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It kinda helps when going doom and gloom to give some sort of accurate portrayal of things. I maintain scepticism because I'm aware we don't know nearly as much about climate as doomsday environmentalists want to make it seem like.. for obvious political reasons. If we did we'd be able to remove the veil of vaguery and give an accurate depiction of events to come. Right now the global warming movement looks more like an attention whore floundering around to be noticed in order to stay relevant. 165 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the Middle East a couple days ago. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 INB4 the thread gets hijacked with comments of hypocrisy rather than discussion on the merits of the actual message.... But the message is that governments must quit talking and take action. If we are to heed his message, we must demand action from our governments (and be willing to make changes in our own lives). Obama is not taking action, he's merely talking about it. So I don't see how the "hypocrisy" argument isn't highly relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 165 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the Middle East a couple days ago. Just saying.That would have killed just about everyone who was outside.Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 165 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the Middle East a couple days ago. Just saying. Cherey picking isolated incident doesn't really prove anything. And I'm not a climate change denier, which is why I think it's important to use proper statistics because there is plenty of evidence out there that does support climate change without having to resort to citing one extreme incident to prove a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Cherey picking isolated incident doesn't really prove anything.And I'm not a climate change denier, which is why I think it's important to use proper statistics because there is plenty of evidence out there that does support climate change without having to resort to citing one extreme incident to prove a trend.That unfortunately describes the global warming movement.Hot day = global warmingCold day = global warmingRain = global warmingNo rain = global warmingForest fire = global warmingHurricane = global warmingNo hurricane = global warmingTornado = global warmingShrinking arctic ice = global warmingGrowing arctic ice = global warmingTaxes too low = global warmingIt's a movement that's become so desperate that they don't just sound like religion, they sound worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 That unfortunately describes the global warming movement. Hot day = global warming Cold day = global warming Rain = global warming No rain = global warming Forest fire = global warming Hurricane = global warming No hurricane = global warming Tornado = global warming Shrinking arctic ice = global warming Growing arctic ice = global warming Taxes too low = global warming It's a movement that's become so desperate that they don't just sound like religion, they sound worse. Global warming doesn't simply describe a change in temperatures actually, that's why they changed the term to climate change. Higher frequency and intensity of storms, more extreme droughts and rainfall, shifting glaciers are all examples of climate change that are affected by the slightest change in ocean temperatures. Anyone who is denying climate change is living in a cave still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 165 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the Middle East a couple days ago. Just saying. It was a heat index. But yes. Hot. I remember when climate change was called global warming, or the greenhouse effect. It was the 80's. Several predictions were made: Hotter summers. This summer here has been the hottest and dryest I can remember. Years ago I never required AC in the house. Now it's unbearable without it most summer days. Same with the car. I'm using the AC more and more each year. It's getting hotter alright. More wildfires. With the longer, dryer summers, this was easy to predict. This summer has been pretty bad. There's been more bad ones recently. Remember when you could have campfires year-round? I can. That idea is pretty much dead every summer now. More droughts. Again, easy. This summer's been bad. Alberta declared an agricultural distaster this weak due to heat and drought. It's been dryer here in the lower mainland this summer than I can remember. Apparently burned, fall-dry leaves and grass in June? That's new. Is it just this summer? Not really, it seems to be a growing trend. Vancouver is supposed to be a temperate rainforest. More floods. Due to accelerated winter runoff. There's been the odd flood here, but it hasn't been as big an issue as it's been in other parts of the world. We're good at dredging the Fraser, etc. Ocean level rise will impact down the road. In Miami, storm drains are bleeding out ocean water. New Orleans and New York City were massively flooded during hurricanes. Only a matter of time. Worse storms. It's all about hot meeting cold. The bigger the temperature changes, the more severe the weather. The bigger the storms. Nasa's currently tracking 3 class 4 hurricanes in the Pacific. For the first time in history. We've seen larger hurricanes bombard the eastern seaboard. These are new trends. Since the 80's we've learned a lot about what our activities have been doing to the environment. The ozone hole isn't as big a concern as it was back then. It's thin now, but not an antarctic-sized hole. That's good. That means that when we stop putting damaging chemicals into the atmosphere, the atmosphere can correct itself. Since the 80's we've seen political movements to change the greenhouse effect to global warming to climate change, because it sounds nicer. What's wrong with change? Today on Wired science there was an article saying that climate change won't be all that bad. They showed a dry paradise picture of what the 'New Earth' will look like after the old one dies. Sure, a lot of species will be lost, but man is resilient. We'll likely live. Right? http://www.wired.com/2015/09/climate-change-means-one-worlds-death-anothers-birth/ It is interesting to listen to the climate change deniers of today. Given all the predictions from the 80's that came true, I'm not sure how you can possibly deny it. I suspect the ones old enough to remember when these predictions were first made will also remember the same old arguments you hear today. "The economy!" On one hand you have the economy. The other hand the Earth. The Economy. or The Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Today on Wired science there was an article saying that climate change won't be all that bad. They showed a dry paradise picture of what the 'New Earth' will look like after the old one dies. Sure, a lot of species will be lost, but man is resilient. We'll likely live. Right? http://www.wired.com/2015/09/climate-change-means-one-worlds-death-anothers-birth/ Oh humans will survive, but it will get very bad before it gets better. Say goodbye to coastal cities like Vancouver, LA, and New York. The water will rise and put these cities under water. There will be food shortages, famine, and global wars just to name a few things. The sooner we accept the reality of it, the sooner we can prepare for the worst. Technology is the key, and if governments put our money where their mouth is, the better off we'll be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Global warming doesn't simply describe a change in temperatures actually, that's why they changed the term to climate change. Higher frequency and intensity of storms, more extreme droughts and rainfall, shifting glaciers are all examples of climate change that are affected by the slightest change in ocean temperatures. Anyone who is denying climate change is living in a cave still. I thought they changed it to "climate change" as "Global Warming" was too limited and didn't give a correct assumption to what is going on - which is a natural occurrence. I'm not a denier for I also believe man has played a part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Oh humans will survive, but it will get very bad before it gets better. Say goodbye to coastal cities like Vancouver, LA, and New York. The water will rise and put these cities under water. There will be food shortages, famine, and global wars just to name a few things. The sooner we accept the reality of it, the sooner we can prepare for the worst. Technology is the key, and if governments put our money where their mouth is, the better off we'll be. Well...maybe Richmond.... "A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, " http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/ Now my question is, when the air temperature rises, what, in general, happens to water? It evaporates. Not saying they didn't take that into consideration...but how do they know how much will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Well...maybe Richmond.... "A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, " http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/ Now my question is, when the air temperature rises, what, in general, happens to water? It evaporates. Not saying they didn't take that into consideration...but how do they know how much will? They don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.