Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[fskimospy]

I dunno, maybe kill off 6 billion humans? That should "save" the planet.

Who is trying to save the planet? I'm trying to save humans.

 

[brycejones]

Richard Muller has always been a Warmist, but at least he tries to be an honest one by dispelling such scientific atrocities such as the hockey stick. He does appear to want to fight with real data sets and not imaginary ones, I'll give him credit for that.

As for the "study", all it does is attempt to verify the temperature record. That is all. Were you ever willing to concede that those were in dispute? No? Then you crow about nothing.

You have shown us that a Warmist believes we've warmed 0.7C. Big !@#$ deal.

Holy carp now we're making up labels like "warmist"? What are you a coldest?

 

[bshole]

Almost anything we do today to mitigate global warming will have costs, and will therefore harm people today. As I correctly suspected before, this is an argument to do nothing.

So Eski, who gets to decide who lives/dies today to prevent theoretical future suffering? How many are you ok with starving to death today to prevent future suffering? Would 100 million be ok with you, a billion? Perhaps you should be put in charge of informing those starving that we simply can't afford to feed them anymore, we have to spend those resources on saving the planet.

How the fuck can you claim to be a liberal and support policies that increase human suffering on such a massive scale right here and right now?

 

[fskimospy]

So Eski, who gets to decide who lives/dies today to prevent theoretical future suffering? How many are you ok with starving to death today to prevent future suffering? Would 100 million be ok with you, a billion? Perhaps you should be put in charge of informing those starving that we simply can't afford to feed them anymore, we have to spend those resources on saving the planet.

This is a silly straw man. The point of acting to mitigate climate change now is because we think it will cost less in the aggregate and therefore prevent more suffering. It's like asking why we're spending our money on buying seeds for a farm to plant food when there are people hungry now. Why? Because we can help more people total with an investment now.

How the fuck can you claim to be a liberal and support policies that increase human suffering on such a massive scale right here and right now?

Because I'm concerned with human suffering on the whole and I know it's important to avoid shortsighted solutions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is in fact research on the effects of cosmic rays and the solar wind on climate. Guess what? The research shows they aren't a significant driver of climate change.

There are many conflicting studies regarding the relevance of GCR on our climate. To say it isn't a significant driver is speculation on your part. GCR research is currently in its infancy.

 

[bshole]

This is a silly straw man. The point of acting to mitigate climate change now is because we think it will cost less in the aggregate and therefore prevent more suffering. It's like asking why we're spending our money on buying seeds for a farm to plant food when there are people hungry now. Why? Because we can help more people total with an investment now.

Because I'm concerned with human suffering on the whole and I know it's important to avoid shortsighted solutions.

No you aren't. You have never been near starving and needy people. You are too fucking cavalier about it. I on the other HAVE been around such people often in my youth. I have witnessed human suffering, I appreciate human suffering. To you, it is no big deal that people starve and suffer today. They are only theoretical people and their suffering does not effect you.

Theoretical suffering in the future outweighs REAL suffering by real people for you. Eski, there are plenty of studies out there proving the devastation created by the climate change policies. For full disclosure, what is your tolerance level for climate change policies? What is the body count you are comfortable with?

 

[TerryMathews]

Almost anything we do today to mitigate global warming will have costs, and will therefore harm people today. As I correctly suspected before, this is an argument to do nothing.

Incorrect. We do a number of things that have a minor detrimental effect or are net neutral. Some even end up as a positive after a while. Look at ULEV autos.

 

[kage69]

No you aren't. You have never been near starving and needy people.

Who exactly are you to tell others what their experiences have been? Please stop acting like an ashole.

 

[TerryMathews]

There are many conflicting studies regarding the relevance of GCR on our climate. To say it isn't a significant driver is speculation on your part. GCR research is currently in its infancy.

That's what I thought.

 

[fskimospy]

No you aren't. You have never been near starving and needy people. You are too fucking cavalier about it. I on the other HAVE been around such people often in my youth. I have witnessed human suffering, I appreciate human suffering. To you, it is no big deal that people starve and suffer today. They are only theoretical people and their suffering does not effect you.

What a transparent load of bullshit. I have been near many, many such people over the last fifteen years. I've spent a good amount of time in horribly poor areas of Nicaragua, in the desperately poor hill areas of Vietnam, and some of the poorest areas of Ecuador.

So while I'm tremendously impressed by your ability to appreciate human suffering, kindly shut up about what you think I know.

Theoretical suffering in the future outweighs REAL suffering by real people for you. Eski, there are plenty of studies out there proving the devastation created by the climate change policies. For full disclosure, what is your tolerance level for climate change policies? What is the body count you are comfortable with?

No, extreme likelihood of much greater suffering in the future outweighs real suffering now. If you want to promote irresponsible and shortsighted policies now that's your business. I choose the responsible path. My goal is always the greatest amount of well being possible for the largest number of people possible. If you are truly concerned with the plight of the poor I strongly encourage you to embrace more responsible policy.

 

[fskimospy]

There are many conflicting studies regarding the relevance of GCR on our climate. To say it isn't a significant driver is speculation on your part. GCR research is currently in its infancy.

There actually aren't that many conflicting studies on it. There is broadly a single researcher in recent years (Svensmark) and a pile of research that not only refutes him but also shows basic errors in his work.

Additionally, GCRs have been studied in relation to climate change for decades now. To say it isn't a significant driver is the overwhelming judgment of the scientific community.

 

[fskimospy]

Incorrect. We do a number of things that have a minor detrimental effect or are net neutral. Some even end up as a positive after a while. Look at ULEV autos.

Guy, if we could significantly mitigate or end climate change through things with little or no detrimental effect we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There actually aren't that many conflicting studies on it. There is broadly a single researcher in recent years (Svensmark) and a pile of research that not only refutes him but also shows basic errors in his work.

Additionally, GCRs have been studied in relation to climate change for decades now. To say it isn't a significant driver is the overwhelming judgment of the scientific community.

You don't know what you're talking about. Many relatively recent papers...research continues.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press-rele...ud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change

 

[fskimospy]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Might want to attend that beam in your eye.

 

[dphantom]

It doesn't matter if you chose ulcers for a reason. Nobody has ever argued that science is infallible, simply that it is the best understanding we have. In this case that understanding is backed up by an enormous amount of quantitative evidence. (unlike the case for ulcers, btw).

Saying 'we just don't know' is an excuse for inaction despite overwhelming evidence. That's close enough to ignoring for me.

Then try plate tectonics.

I doubt anyone is arguing there is climatic variation, perhaps now being a warming period. The fundamental question is how much is man a contributor to the .7C rise in temperatures since the 1800's.

 

[bshole]

No, extreme likelihood of much greater suffering in the future outweighs real suffering now. If you want to promote irresponsible and shortsighted policies now that's your business. I choose the responsible path. My goal is always the greatest amount of well being possible for the largest number of people possible. If you are truly concerned with the plight of the poor I strongly encourage you to embrace more responsible policy.

Scientifically quantify "extreme likelihood". With people on the forefront of feeding the poor defining your final solution as genocidal, your moral high ground doesn't appear very high from my vantage point.

All the solutions proposed to solve the future problem involve enriching a tiny population of elitists and impoverishing/starving wide swathes of the world's population. It is at its core, genocidal. The policies will kill off 100 millions of the poor (perhaps intentionally). Already many have suffered and died due to the policies. This shouldn't be news to you. There are PLENTY of articles out there about it.

As Lord Monckton outlined in his recent Alex Jones Show appearance, climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death.

:​

"

In April last year, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.​

“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.​

http://www.prisonplanet.com/third-world-under-attack-from-genocidal-climate-change-policy.html​

http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/08/guatemalan-children-starve-due-to-ethanol-mandates/​

The New York Times reports that ethanol and biofuel mandates in the U.S. and Europe are fueling rising hunger in Guatemala, which now has the fourth-highest rate of child malnutrition in the world — higher than in many less developed countries in Africa:

Eski, YOUR policies are fueling starvation in Guatemala. Do you give a shit?​

 

[fskimospy]

Scientifically quantify "extreme likelihood". With people on the forefront of feeding the poor defining your final solution as genocidal, your moral high ground doesn't appear very high from my vantage point.

All the solutions proposed to solve the future problem involve enriching a tiny population of elitists and impoverishing/starving wide swathes of the world's population. It is at its core, genocidal. The policies will kill off 100 millions of the poor perhaps intentionally. Already many have suffered and died due to the policies. This shouldn't be news to you. There are PLENTY of article out there about it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/third-world-under-attack-from-genocidal-climate-change-policy.html

http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/08/guatemalan-children-starve-due-to-ethanol-mandates/


[/LEFT]

Annnnnnnnnd now we've gone off into Alex Jones insanity.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Because it would be a grayer and poorer world in every way with, say, a tenth as many darter species, or barren barrier reefs choked with algae, or the various endangered southwestern and midwestern species wiped out as that region returns to a dust bowl due to persistent drought, or four thousand frog species wiped out because the climate got a bit more friendly to a persistent fungus, or with clouds of mosquito poison because the bats and dragonflies died out, or future generations unable to experience a tuna salad sandwich because the tuna died out when the herring died out when the sardines died out when the krill died out when the reefs ceased their huge spawns of pelagic larvae.

All these species are gifts from G-d. When we let one go extinct, we fail to honor our responsibility. I'm not sold on CAGW, but CO2 concentration is clearly all on us.

Shall we stop wiping the virus and bacteria that try to kill us then?
Or shall we bring back the dinosaurs and the millions of species that were gone before mammals were bigger than mice? Shall we actively transform Antarctica in the same continent that was habitable by dinosaurs (hint: there was no ice there)?

What about the plant life that thrives on higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2?
Should we actively reduce their "food supply"?

Species go extinct. That opens the spot for new species to take the niches those other species occupied.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Species go extinct. That opens the spot for new species to take the niches those other species occupied.

Such is evolution in a constantly changing environment. And I'm OK with that...as if anyone has any say in the matter.

 

[schmuckley]

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-can-we-do-about-global-warming

What would one expect from people that make their living being funded for this research?

LOL

Buncha bullshit is what it is..owait..bullshit causes global warming, too.

Therefore they are causing global warming with their bullshit.


It's really not funny when these people are taken seriously;Food crops being replaced by biofuel crops that may or not even be used.In the meantime food prices are steadilty rising;less is being in the packages..anndd..the government is still paying farmers to not grow crops.
This is insanity.

 

[TerryMathews]

Guy, if we could significantly mitigate or end climate change through things with little or no detrimental effect we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The point is, we may have. We really don't know. We dont know to what degree the rise is temperature is caused by manmade interference vs natural processes.

Global warming always strikes me as the liberal version of voter fraud. You all just know that there's this huge problem, regardless of what the science says or is capable of saying at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

The point is, we may have. We really don't know. We dont know to what degree the rise is temperature is caused by manmade interference vs natural processes.

Global warming always strikes me as the liberal version of voter fraud. You all just know that there's this huge problem, regardless of what the science says or is capable of saying at this point.

This is a pretty absurd comparison. We have one thing that decades of rigorous scientific analysis overwhelmingly supports. (that man is the primary cause of rising temperatures in recent decades) The other thing is something that all attempts to analyze explicitly shows does NOT exist. (in-person voter fraud)

They are literally exact opposites. One the science supports, one the science refutes. The difference is that I respect the analysis either way.

 

[dphantom]

This is a pretty absurd comparison. We have one thing that decades of rigorous scientific analysis overwhelmingly supports. (that man is the primary cause of rising temperatures in recent decades) The other thing is something that all attempts to analyze explicitly shows does NOT exist. (in-person voter fraud)

They are literally exact opposites. One the science supports, one the science refutes. The difference is that I respect the analysis either way.

plate tectonics

 

[Jaskalas]

Holy carp now we're making up labels like "warmist"? What are you a coldest?

Haven't seen this topic much have you. Deniers are what they say.

 

[Jaskalas]

Almost anything we do today to mitigate global warming will have costs, and will therefore harm people today. As I correctly suspected before, this is an argument to do nothing.

Harm people, do nothing, throw some funds towards alternative energy.

I'll take the third option. Let Carbon rip, but diligently work on how to replace it.