Bitcoin Forum

We fixed the problem years ago and just need to invest in something that actually works.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/November/15110901.asp

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680691/genetically-engineered-bacteria-become-the-worlds-most-efficient-plastic-factory

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130129080624.htm

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-01/bacteria-develop-appetite-electricity


I think you get the point I'm trying to bring across :P if you want to 'save' the planet, go invest in some bio-engineered bacteria already!

dear  Environmentalists
we're still in an ice age, and its gotta stop some time.....grow a pair

Yes environmentalists, and stop claiming there were dinosaurs. There never were dinosaurs and we are certainly not burning them and releasing carbon into the sky. Also stop claiming that atmospheric carbon retains more heat. This can only be demonstrated repeatedly in a lab, via computer models, or in every controlled experiment ever done. But what does that really mean?
Lets just all agree that despite the laws of physics, this is not happening. Now repeat that three times and burn something.

What does dinosaurs have to do with environmentalism?

Dinosaurs didn't have any environmentalists and look where they are now.

The same mindset that could deny global warming denied the existence of dinosaurs a generation ago. It takes willful ignorance, not just misunderstanding. Of course eventually the evidence was so overwhelming and ubiquitous that even the most ardent creationist had to find dinosaurs somewhere in the bible. So they did. Now the story is that the dinos were wiped out in the flood. Even though the bible says no such thing.
This is what will happen with global warming. Eventually it will be too hot to dispute and the deniers will say... "sure i have always known there was global warming but...".

Post not making much that sense RodeoX, you do realise I'm talking about a solution to global warming that's actually real and could work if there's enough money behind it right? You seem to be in troll mode.

How long has the earth existed?
How long has there been life on Earth?
How long have there been Humans on Earth?
How long have we been tracking the temperature?

Each of those answers is shorter by at least an order of magnitude than the one above it. That AGW is a popular theory does not surprise me, given the number of people who look at the last 6 hours of Bitcoin's price and scream that it's crashing because it lost $10.

Seen on a geologic scale, what you get is this:
Idiot humans built all their cities on the coast during a cool period when there was more coast. The Earth has been warmer, even within human memory, than it is now.

Why don't you actively promote these solutions in other places and do something about it instead of bitching about environmentalists and scientists who actually made us aware of this problem in the first place?

You do realise true environmentalists are looking at the solutions too?

What is this bs.

and all those scientists got nice big research grants out of their findings.....

So do scientists who are researching cures for cancer. What's your point?

It was warmer 10k+ years ago. And really warm in the distant past. The concern is about now. If you put C02 in the sky the sky will warm. That is a scientific fact and unless someone has a new theory of thermodynamic law any counter argument must address this.
I hear all the time that scientist are involved in a grand hoax, or global warming is "what someone wants you to think". That means nothing without an explanation of why physics doesn't work in this one special case of the sky.

Well even though there are no biblical dinasours, you could say, the volcanic activity that occurred during the breakup of Pangea caused global warming cause of the release of Green House Gasses. This caused a rise in the levels of waters eventually lead to natural damns to collapse and cause floods...

or

... a meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula, caused massive earthquakes and tsunamis. The dust cloud created huge world shadows, causing nuclear winter. Which killed a lot of plant/bacteria life. At the same time the impact released green house gasses. With little plant/bacteria to process those gasses caused Global warming melting the water that froze during nuclear winter. This caused a rise in the levels of waters eventually lead to natural damns to collapse and cause floods...

or

It was the Unakis...

Which is my point. You're looking at the last 6 hours and screaming "Crash!"

We're actually still recovering from the "Little Ice Age"

No one is denying that but anthropogenic climate change is also scientifically proven fact according to current laws of physics and models. Both truths exist at once it is not an either / or proposition.

Might be time to dust off the tin foil hat  :D

So, during a time period that:
1. The sun is increasing output
2. The climate is recovering from an Ice Age
3. Humans are adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere

It's a FACT that the third input is to blame, and should be punished?

Point #1:

It's irrelevant that calamities caused hot temperatures in the past and that sea levels rose, etc., etc., etc. We already know that there are other ways in which climate change can occur besides being caused by humanity. It's exactly equivalent to arguing that since natural events such as earthquakes and volcano eruptions cause damage to human built infrastructure, there's no reason not to set off bombs indiscriminately.

Point #2:

Using your political ideology to make judgements about what's going on in the environment is about as stupid as you can get. It's exactly like arguing that the Earth is 6,000 years ago because it's inconvenient for your religion to admit otherwise.

Point #3:

Anybody arguing there is no scientific consensus on AGW is sourcing their information from sites written by idiots as described in point #2.

Point #4:

Just because mankind has only been around for a small amount of time relative to the geologic scale does not mean we don't have temperature records which go back further. It's called taking samples from ice cores, tree rings, etc., to help us accurately build a temperature record through correlation and using one set of data to predict others which allows validation and verification of climate theory through the scientific method.

Point #5:

The temperature rise in the past 200 years far exceeds any prediction from a climate model in light of all natural phenomena which has occurred in that time period.

Point #6:

Milankovich Cycles, the leading theory for the cause of ice ages, predict that we have been entering into a new ice age for thousands of years. Milankovich Cycles correlate strongly with the data for past ice ages. Despite that, temperatures have been rising fast and steady for the last two hundred years.

Point #7:

Scientists get a lot of credit for debunking theories. And if you think there's a lot of money out there to fund science which seeks to validate AGW, just know that there's a huge supply of money out there to fund science which seeks to disprove it. It's called Big Oil. And if you happen to check the funding sources of any (and every, by the way) piece which makes claims that AGW is not happening, the trail of money leads back to Big Oil. Every time.

I assume that was pointed at me, since you used your favorite "political ideology" argument...

Point #1:
Not calamities. the planet was naturally warmer than it is now.

Point #2
I'm not using my political ideology for anything here. That's your bias talking.

Point #3
Scientific consensus requires consensus. A large body of scientists disagree, ergo, no consensus.

Point #4
And those very same data support my statement: It was warmer before, and it will be warmer again. Quit panicking.

Point #5
When your climate model fails to predict the climate, it means you need to rework the model.

Point #6
So, you're saying that AGW is saving us from an Ice Age, and if we stop, Detroit will be under ice again? Seems like an argument for turning up the furnaces.

Point #7
And if you trace the money from the Pro-AGW studies, they all lead back to people who have a vested interest in it being proven. Surprise! Scientists can be bought.

In response to your statements:

#1: And... ?

#2: If you're not using your political ideology, then what are you using? Apparently not science.

#3: Please share the source which makes you think your body of disagreeing scientists is 'large'.

#4: You're not assimilating the data or ramifications of the data effectively.

#5: Scientists have been predicting warming for fifty years. And let me remind you that the consensus back then pointed towards warming. It was only a small subset back then that was predicting cold.

#6: If we're saving ourselves from an ice age, we're going too fast, and it's the rapid pace which doesn't allow for proper adaptation.

#7: You totally missed the point, as you did on all points. If scientists can be bought (some can be), then how come Big Oil isn't effectively buying them to the point of creating more than a tiny fraction of theories and papers which are against AGW?

Finally: why do you suppose the Oregon Petition exists?

The above quote sums up beautifully my entire position on global warming, anthropogenic or not.

Gaea is a big girl. She can take care of herself.

But again, how is it possible that one can add CO2 to the atmosphere without driving up heat retention. You can try it at home. Get two fishtanks and seal them. In one put some air, in the other put some air and some extra CO2. Now place a thermometer in both and shine a lamp on them. Within an hour you will notice that the CO2 tank is heating up more.
In the past it has been warmer and colder. That is perfectly natural. But so is the death of 90% of all life on Earth. It has happened at least 5 times before.
My concern is that even though I love nature, it does not love me. There is no reason to think that the warming will stop before our extinction. In fact it may be to late. The permafrost is now melting and that is very worrying. The methane that is now being released could dwarf the effect humans directly have on the sky. At the same time the oceans are soaking up less and less CO2 as the reefs die. With all this evidence I consider anything less than alarm to be a weak response.

Way to sidestep the points and give a useless answer. We know the Earth isn't going to disappear. That isn't the point of the efforts against AGW. To point out the obvious, the point is to bring things back to a state where the Earth's natural climate changes are the norm.

There's the flaw in your experiment.

Bet you can even guess why.

And my point is that She can do that Herself. Trying to fuck with a self-regulating system is only going to cause problems.

Then we should stop fucking with the self regulating system, shouldn't we?

Obviously, the extreme of not fucking with the self regulating system would be the absence of any humanity induced output. Something between our current output and no output would be less fucking with the self regulating system, no?

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Al Gore have a hand in creating some sort of stock exchange, thus creating, of sorts, a flow of money to stop global warming.

In regard to the meteor that hit Península de Yucatán eons ago, thanks to plate tectonics, the peninsula's current location is no longer near its location when the meteor hit, let alone its shape.

Speaking of plate tectonics, the climate of the Earth would have been much different a billion plus years ago even if then the relative conditions we have today were the same, simply due to a larger disconnect ocean interacting with the sun and moon (as in tides), coupled with the conveyor system being completely different.

I don't see it. Is it sealing the tanks? That is just so the air won't float away. Not the same seal as the earth, gravity does that IRL. But basically we live on a wet rock with a bubble around it, so the sky is sequestered.  

If you didn't seal the tanks, you wouldn't have a valid experiment, as it would simply mix with the outside environment.

OK, maybe this will get you to understand. What happens when water boils?

I dislike being 'preached at' as much as anybody.

But if people don't hear about global warming from pushy environmentalists, they'll hear about it from fruitloops like Alex Jones, the right wing press, the left wing press (which is usually pretty inaccurate too), silver tongued representatives of the oil and coal lobbies, people who believe that global warming won't happen because God promised Noah there wouldn't be a second flood (Republican congressmen), people who say que sera sera, car salesman and travel agents. Actually who needs a list, let's just say every group which has an investment in the current economic system which is based on carbon expenditure and ever expanding production and consumption.

In this situation it doesn't much matter who brings the problem up or how, so long as it's being discussed as a problem. Solutions will be embraced once we widely recognise warming to be a problem within our power. Anyone who recognises it as a problem and raises awareness is alright with me.

P.s. Here is a great Ted Talk on the importance for cattle grazing for global warming. The speaker argues that if we use cattle to reverse desertification, then we can begin to reverse climate change!

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

What happens when we reduce our global footprint - i.e stop trying to fuck with the self regulating system. I'm awaiting your answer from my last post. And let me point out that it was you who just advocated that we should indeed reduce the level of fucking we do with the Earth's natural self regulation.

You assume that humanity is not part of that self-regulating system. We are not outside of nature. We are part of nature. Therefore anything we do is part of that self-regulating system. You complain about the environment not having time to adjust. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly changed directions just as the environment started to adjust?

Put another way, which is worse, inflation, or inflation, then deflation?

Thank you for putting your foot in your mouth. If the new technology which mankind puts to use is part of the self regulating system, then please refrain from ever pointing to events prior to the technological age as analogies for climate change.

The bottom line is we are the only species which advances our tools at a rapid pace, thus constantly creating a change in the level of our effects. This rapid change is exactly the kind of thing which can throw a self regulating system out of balance. And that especially applies to the short term - i.e thousands of years.

Frankly, I wish the deniers were right.  :-[

Unfortunately, they are not. Too bad they can't see that.

Right, because if the new stuff is part of the system, the old stuff clearly must not be. ::)

Humans have been changing their environment since the first hominid picked up a burning stick and brought it back to the cave.

At ever changing rates, our technological changes are not necessarily things that our planet's self regulating system can deal with if your interest is a world rich in biodiversity, productive ecosystems, and by extension, ecosystem services.

You can clearly see the difference in 100,000 humans using fire vs. billions of cars today. Or are you not able to see that difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk

Think Carlin is spot on

He's not spot on. Not only are people fucked, but so are tens of thousands of other species, ecosystems, and so on. And we're the cause of it.

There is no baseline metric of what defines the planet as being fine. The best metric is the one in which the planet's systems proceed at the pace they normally do, which is not occurring right now.

Certainly. Progress. Eventually, we'll have a few trillion humans using space ships. Then some number of quadrillions using who knows what.

Or we can go back, and we'll still be back at 100,000 using fire when the sun bakes the planet dry.

Your views are naive and unencumbered with sophistication.

...and we're back to slinging mud, then, are we?

Not that I'm aware of. I made an assessment of your views on the subject. I don't consider it to be mud slinging, but a fair summary of your views. Take it as you will.

Nope. If you look at the planet you can find life everywhere. Dosen't matter how harsh it is. Life is everywhere. No matter if it's cold, warm, no oxygen, high pressure..... The planet will do fine long after we are gone.
If it's our time to go, it's our time to go. The planet will do fine without us

Study up on ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity.

It doesn't matter if we find lichens and bacteria in Antarctica. Our goal isn't to acknowledge that if we radically render the planet into an inhospitable place for megafauna, we will still have bacteria and heat thriving nematodes on the planet.

Please read again the last paragraph of the post you're responding to. I'll quote it for you:

That is not very consoling. lol

No, it's not. Not, at least, if you're human-centric. However, if what you care about is "the environment," or "the planet," then I imagine it's quite comforting to know that after we've wiped ourselves out, life on earth will continue.

It's an absurd argument.

What he just doesn't get is if nature, in the absence of mankind, takes the world in that direction, then so be it, but the reality is (and this is the key point), it is mankind that is taking the world in that direction, and that should be corrected.

"If nature, absent a key part of nature, takes the world in that direction, so be it, but the reality is (and this is the key point), it is that key part of nature that is taking the world in that direction, and that should be corrected."

Hey, isn't PETA also on that road where they'll only be satisfied when all human beings are wiped out?

I think it's safe to say, humans being selfish is a lot better than humans being dead.  Not saying "screw the planet", but, if I gotta live in space for the rest of my life, I'll be down with that.

So you admit it's better to be selfish and try and prevent our home from being destroyed by our pollution rather than being dead due to ecosystem destruction by our hand?

If man's technology is part of nature, then so are his efforts and programs to curtail pollution and environmental destruction.

Pretty much my point. If humans left or died, the planet would be fine without us. It's not like it's the end of the world

I've yet to see you admit it.

Just once, say that your top priority is human survival, and not that of "the planet," and I'll be behind you 100% on that.

I think we need to take ownership of our own planet.  Nobody takes a shit on their living room floor, right?  However, if my house going to be bull-dozed, and there's nothing I can do about it, there's no chance in hell I'm dying with it.

My top priority is human survival within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind. Simple enough.

I'm cool with humans being gone. My view is that all life is really the same creature. I don't know why, but DNA has emerged and radiated into millions of forms. But it is all just the same DNA creature. You, me, trees, germs, we are the same creature.  There has been only one living thing ever discovered.
So it's no big deal if 90% of life dies on Earth. No different than pruning 90% of the limbs off a tree. Still, i will miss the parties.

Oh, so close, but you had to go and restrict it like that!
"within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind."

So: Only on Earth, and we must limit our population so that we have no effect - as if we were not even there.

100,000 using fire when the sun bakes the planet dry. No thanks.

Perhaps the next branch smart enough to throw them will have even better parties.

That's akin to saying "I'd be cool dying tomorrow."  I'm not :P  Sorry.

I didn't say that.

Hmmm. maybe there is reason for hope? Maybe honey badgers will take over? They would party hardy for sure!

Yes you did.
"within a natural environment"
By definition, anything extra-terrestrial will be an artificial environment, or not humanity's natural environment.

"that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind."
In order for it to be neither accelerated or decelerated, we must avoid affecting our environment at all. As though we are not even there.

Here, let me help you:

"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to not drastically alter our biosphere."

I think even you can agree with that one, yes?

I mostly agree with that. However, to be honest, it makes little difference to me if humanity survives or not in the distant future. It just seems irrelevant. Our lives, our children, and so on - that is important. If the human species slowly dwindles or evolves makes little difference to me. Now if I could come along for the ride and see the rest of the Universe, that would interesting, I admit.

As for not drastically altering our biosphere, I would prefer something more along the lines of "as much as possible, do not alter our biosphere".

So your children's children don't matter?  And their children don't matter?  That's not very nice.

Nothing lasts forever. Don't mince words. Dwindling can be the result of people not having children, and/or having only one child.

I'm not mincing words.  You're saying you don't give two shits what happens after your children.  With that logic, you should just do whatever you want, since you don't care about posterity.  There's nothing you, as an individual, will do in your daily life that can alter your life or your children's life significantly.  It will, however, significantly alter the lives after, and this can be good or bad.  Since neither you or I know when the human race will finally kick the bucket, we can only assume we're not going away in the next 100 years.

You're mincing words. I apologize for not catering to your brand of taking only the literal meaning of every word. Children can be a metaphor. This particular sideline conversation is over unless you want it to become very heated and simultaneously irrelevant.

OK, just so I know where you stand. Any demise of the human species, or even any great difficulties due to climate change - anthropogenic or not - will happen long after your death. 100 years, or a million, if you're not there to see it, it doesn't make any difference. Anything past my expected demise is effectively "the distant future." This being the case, you should be comforted that the earth will go on, regardless of what we do.

Very well, I can amend the statement to:
"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to alter our biosphere as little as possible."

However, I should point out that there are events, completely outside of our control, which will drastically alter our biosphere. The most certain, though also the furthest away, is the sun baking our planet to a cinder in ~4.5 billion years. Nearer-term, there are asteroid impacts, supervolcano eruptions, solar fluctuations, and any number of other events, any one of which stand to wipe not only our species, but nearly every other one as well, off the face of the planet. It's happened before.

Therefore, my statement would look more like this:
"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that is to get a solid self-sustaining space presence, and in the meantime, alter our biosphere as little as possible."

An admirable start; allow me to continue this most pointed line of questioning.

What is the total sum of the global carbon cycle and what percentage of that is due to human activity?
What amount of methane, CO2, SOX, and NOX are released by an average volcano?
What amount of methane, CO2, SOX, and NOX are released by a large volcanic eruption?
What amount of CO2 is trapped by forests, oceans, and other carbon sinks?
How much is climate change slowed by negative feedback mechanisms such as cloud albedo, the iris effect, and global dimming?
How would anything else cause more climate change than the sun?
How can anyone take the Official Science of Government Sponsored Academia seriously, given the utterly humiliating/discrediting disclosures found in the CRU whistleblower's bombshell data leak (Climategate)?

I have taken several classes through Scripps Institute of Oceanography (respected research institute). Their consensus is that a global warming is occuring and that humans are the cause of it. The evidence points to the fact that this is true. And, there is no denying (even if you're a skeptic) cold, hard facts (no pun intended).

The one big question I have is, how were there periods of warming and ice ages before the burning of fossil fuel was even a plausible thought? I bet nearly every timeline presented by an organization that believes in global warming extends back just far enough to make the change in temperature look like it is increasing linearly. View heating/cooling trends since the Earth's formation. Global warming is a natural phenomenon. The only thing we (humans) might be doing is slightly accelerating it.

What I've been shouting all along.

Scripps?  That appeal to authority might be persuasive to me, had I not spent several years attending even more prestigious institutions and doing my own research.   ;D

Their consensus is based on flawed data and flawed models, as revealed by the Climategate dossier.

That flawed consensus, and the flawed data and flawed models which produced it, are hopelessly compromised by the incentives ($$$) to confirm ACG/AGW and the penalties for disputing it ("Hey Denier, you're fired").

There is plenty of room to disupte that consensus.  Your desire to Declare Victory does not reflect, much less create, reality.

You will find that the best coverage of Climategate was reported by The Register.  As an IT-focused news site, they had an advantage over the MSM in understanding all the wonky bits (hackers? arrays? fudge factors? code comments?).


Climate change is a natural phenomenon, controlled primarily by the sun and other aspects of geophysics that dwarf anything man has ever done.