Bitcoin Forum

Watched this video and it blew my mind, it is a discussion between Stefan Molyneux that some of you already know and the previous chief of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, it is full with important facts that cannot be denied and it showed that the future cannot be predicted by a computer model because there are too many variables

You need some willpower to start the video and watch 5minutes (come on you can do it you lazy f$$) but then odds are you will be hooked and you will probably learn more about the Climate change that you already know; people talk about things they don't know nothing about, it is scary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgcyW-MqtY&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w

Stefan Molyneux, enough said, not wasting my time with this...

It's so confusing all the different opinions on climate change. For me it seems that it's a natural process for the climate our planet. It's a very complicated system, with a huge amount of factors to influenciate. In reality man cannot understand all these factors. And when man cannot understand things they tend to create myths.

Thank you for the link. will add it to my thread.

It's not the usual Molyneux video, it's the ex-Greenpeace scientist talking for 97% of the time


The guy in the video tells a few key points including the fact that it is a natural change, it's hard to predict the future climate since there are so variables; we can't predict with a computer which horse will win but it is harder to predict the future climate; CO2 is good for plants thus good for life and the current level is not that high, 2 more degrees won't kill us since we are a tropical specie who lived most its life near the Equator between the two Tropics

It is.Mainstream media don't want tell this

Mainstream media says that the temperature will go up because of human activity and that it is bad but can they really tell why it would be bad? They have no idea what will be affect (if anything) by more CO2 in the atmosphere

When the temperatures increase the polar ice starts to melt and the sea level starts to rise, this is the real affect of global warming, if you see a show called "Vice" it shows how water levels are rising increasingly and the world around is sinking.

More sunburns.

We are still in the Ice Age so a warming up of the temperatures is natural, probably nothing we can do about it if it's due to the Sun like the Russian scientist community think and can you tell me how many cm the seal level would rise if the global temperature is raised by 2degrees? And how many people would be affected?? Raising temperatures would be good for countries like Canada who will be able to use the northern of their country and for us humans that are made for tropical temperatures

No, you cannot predict the rise in sea level resulting from a 2 degree rise.  The reason is that to attempt it you must presume all other factors are unchanged, such as the ocean currents.   But they would not be the same. 

And there really is not any such thing as a measurable "global temperature", that's a myth and an unscientific jury rigged construction.  Scientific would be to look at increases in latent heat of the ocean mass.

Increased numbers of girls with bikinis must be stopped.

Nothing can be changed unless people stop breeding like rabbits and only consume what they need.

When a population gets richer (and consume more) they have less kids, look at Birmania
What consumption do we need? Schools, roads, hospitals, food, when you think about it there is a lot we need

The video says something interesting : maybe producing more CO2 will be good for the plants because they need CO2 to develop


What you say makes a lot of sense, not like the idea that scientists  know how much the "global temperature" will rise, when, why and what will be the consequences. How would they know that? All the models that have been made have proven wrong, they make new ones every other year that invariably turn out to be wrong; you can't predict most things that have too many variables

You get your science news from mainstream media?

Do you agree that more CO2 will be beneficial for plants and a twice or three times more CO2 concentration that what we have will not threaten humanity at all since we have seen way higher levels of CO2 in the past, just a few hundreds thousands year ago

Um, no. At least not in the last 800000 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg)

1/It goes up and down even when there is no human activity, all the models and everything that has been said about rising CO2 levels caused by human activity and the predictions of consequences have been proven wrong

2/If it has go up tremendously last 200years, nothing bad happened and we are safe

3/CO2 is not bad, it is great for plants

4/We have seen CO2 levels that big http://oilprice.com/uploads/AB296.png
Real CO2 levels : http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

Humans are a tropical specie that can sustain much higher temperatures

1/It goes up and down even when there is no human activity, all the models and everything that has been said about rising CO2 levels caused by human activity and the predictions of consequences have been proven wrong

2/If it has go up tremendously last 200years, nothing bad happened and we are safe

3/CO2 is not bad, it is great for plants

4/We have seen CO2 levels that big
Real CO2 levels : http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

Humans are a tropical specie that can sustain much higher temperatures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record)

As you can see in the graphs above and in the wiki article this man-made global warming stuff seems to be BS. During the most thriving periods of life the global average temperature and the CO2 levels were much higher than today. We are at the end of a cold period, and now Earth warming up. Period.

That is the point of a lot of scientists including the Greenpeace ex-chief in the video forwarded in this thread, maybe human activity is warming the Earth a little bit faster but maybe it's good and nobody really knows what will happen; the so called climatologists that alarm people to the warming occurring have wrong for decades about their short term predictions

So you think a higher sea level is ok? Like 200 meters higher?

Wow....200 meters?

Hate to break this bad news, but 200 meters higher would ruin the best surf zones.

In the long run, though, we have an ice age coming.  We know it; we know the cycles; we know the percent of time the Earth has been in ice ages versus the percent of time it is temperate.

So this is the Big Problem.  And as you are aware, ice will make the sea level irrelevant. 

But maybe we are lucky and we have a few thousand years before this cyclical event returns the planet to ice.  So what are you asserting, that during that time period we may see a 200 meter sea level rise, and have societies severely impacted by it?

No, probably not 200 meters. That would require burning all the coal and oil.
If it will be a problem depends on the speed of the change. It's not easy to relocate billions of people.

When it has happened in the past it generally wipes out most life on Earth. No reason to think it will be different this time. Silly humans, always thinking the rules do not apply to them. Time to get schooled by mother nature.

Avoiding hubris is good.

But what's worse? 

To believe governments when they say that if you give them your tax dollars and more, and more, they will roll back the oceans?

How many degrees do you need for the ocean level to go up 200m? Not 2!! And it is very speculative to say it will go up 200m because you would need all the ice of the North and South Pole to melt and stay in the oceans


No need to relocate billions of people and we are still in the Ice Age


Silly humans that think humans are bad for Earth and that they can predict the future

OK but higher levels of CO2 is not proved to wipe out most life on Earth quite the contrary since plants need CO2

Where did you heard this silliness? The most thriving periods of life on earth with the biggest variety of plant and animal species were those warm periods. According to the geologic records the average temperature was 10-15 degrees higher than today and the atmospheric CO2 content sometimes was as high as 4000 ppm. At the end of the Pliocene the CO2 level was the same as today the temperature as well, and that was the start of a cold period what was the coldest time since the Permian and caused the still ongoing quaternary extinction event what wiped out most of the megafauna from the Earth. (The man made Holocene extinction is an addition to that.) Some 20000 years ago this three million years long cold period have ended and now Earth warming up.

BTW that very very scary omg +200m not counting with all the water what will evaporate because of the higher temperature. Also not counting with that amount of water what will be consumed and stored by plants.

climate change is something that can not be avoided at this time, as a result of human behavior itself as logging on a large scale, the lack of reforestation after logging, burning of idle land, all resulting in climate change, intense heat caused by the depletion of the ozone layer caused because of the smoke that filled the air industry in the world, so that it causes the greenhouse effect, the melting of ice dikutub north and south, banjirpun happens everywhere due to rising sea levels, climate change is hopefully the case is not much cause casualties. ..  8)

Two quotes, together.

Scary.

I'm actually really puzzling about this.  More CO2 in the air may have a nominal effect but don't we want to prevent the next ice age?  Not help it come faster?

AHHHH finally someone sums it up well, almost copied paste your comment to the first post, everything is said clearly!

So what's the count in this thread on Realistic like you and me and Climate Deniers like those say the Earth warming up is bad? About 50/50

What they're trying to convey is that human activities greatly affects the rate of the cyclical change of the Earth's climate. CO2 may be beneficial to all living things, yes, but doesn't CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If more and more CO2 are trapped in our atmosphere, the possibility is that the temperature of the planet may increase and result to a much faster ice meltdown, which may cause the ocean level to rise (not that much, though).

You are right CO2 emission may contribute to the Greenhouse Effect : "Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms—are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation"

But "if an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C" so hopefully we have the Greenhouse effect

I don't see any evidence that a rise of a few degrees of the temperature will not be beneficial overall; a significant raise of the ocean level is not a reasonable consequence of a small rise in temperature

Sea level has varied widely over timeframes in terms of millions of years, i would imagine it will continue to.  Man has located many huge cities right next to the oceans, thus creating something of an economic problem if in the vicinity of those cities, sea levels were to rise on a scale faster than the rebuilding and renewing of the city infrastructure.  But that's a multi hundred year timeframe.

The idea that is being promoted by governments, that taxpayers give them money and they will roll back the oceans, is utterly ridiculous.

If man can find an excuse to make money he will try to sell you the air that we breathe

Or if it can help them control the people they will sell you the fact that a disgusting expensive energy such as solar panels or wind turbines is better than natural green energy such as oil or the most renewable and less dedly energy (only one major very deadly incident in 50years) : radioactivity

They are not really disgusting, they just need to be carefully located.  Say on islands where there is no natural energy and all electric comes from ships bringing fuel oil or coal to the island.  Or remote areas, where it isn't practical or cheap to run a power line. 

It's disgusting to lie about solar and wind and to claim they will replace coal and gas.

We have sufficient experience with solar and wind today to know these claims are false.

Look at the fail of Germany on so called "green" energies; they lost billions for nothing and they are importing nuclear energy from Poland and use coal energy

Wind turbines and solar panels use rare earth metals, wind turbines only last for 20years and need a lot of maintenance so they need a lot of ressources to build and to maintain

Yes, I agree completely.  But STILL, you will agree with me that there are likely some places on this planet where solar and or windmill power do make perfect sense from an engineering and fiscal perspective.

The error is in indiscriminate promotion of these systems by governments in bed with greenies.

Oh yes I agree and the market and private capital would develop the technology but pouring billions and sometimes tens of billions in public programs without caring much about the cost or if it's profitable is a bad idea

It makes me think of hundreds of billions rail road constructed that everyone like when you could pay an airline ticket a month to every citizen for 100years with the same money!

I've always suspected under the table pumping up of the radical left green agenda, including the solar and wind games, by forces profiting from continued dependance on oil.  Used the be Evil from the view of the left was Exxon, curious that it wasn't Saudi and other middle east oil companies.  But it never was - it was the US company, Exxon. 

Lately, with Germany and the Soviet natural gas pipeline, it's became clear this is more than wild conspiracy theory. 

Ha ha. LOL.
No.
They are in bed with the big companies.
Example: http://www.rag-stiftung.de/en/about-us/the-board-of-executives/dr-werner-mueller/ (http://www.rag-stiftung.de/en/about-us/the-board-of-executives/dr-werner-mueller/)
Certainly not anything green.
Things would look a lot different.

Government are in bed with green energy companies

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar  ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt  ($500,000)*
Solyndra  ($535 million)*
Beacon Power  ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal  ($98.5 million)
SunPower  ($1.2 billion)
First Solar  ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown  ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1  ($118.5 million)*
Amonix  ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive  ($529 million)
Abound Solar  ($400 million)*
A123 Systems  ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group  ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls  ($299 million)
Brightsource  ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality  ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies  ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices  ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc.  ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company  ($10 million)*
Range Fuels  ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power  ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems  ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics  ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts  ($500,000)
Vestas  ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power  ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower  ($16 million)*
Navistar  ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc.  ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp.  ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Governments are also in bed with big companies

Hmmm....

I guess I'll stick with my comment as made (bolded).  I'm not going to argue gov isn't in bed with many other types of companies, including oil.  But "indiscriminate promotion" of company products, as has been occurring with solar and wind, certainly doesn't extend to a lot of other categories of things that companies lobby, influence or buy off governments for.

bump as Kerry is trying to get some attention and praises for his very conventional positions on climate change

How IPCC and climate science mainstream are underestimating climate change:
The world’s climate change watchdog may be underestimating global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/)
Whether they are corrupt and paid by the fossil industry or just scared and trying to appease denialists and their powerful and wealthy backers, I can't tell, but I tend to support the second hypothesis. But it clearly shows that they are anything but "alarmist", and so are the so-called "greens". Quitting nuclear energy was a terrible hit to the environment, the worst nuclear accidents pale even compared to the current damage caused by fossul fuels, not to talk about the extremely likely future risks.

Even hydro energy is more deadly than radioactivity :

Banqiao Dam   China   26,000 dead from direct flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. Caused loss of generation, dam failed by overtopping

Solar and Windmills pollute too much and don't last enough time

The climate has changed throughout the earth’s history but the huge changes happening to our climate today are not due to natural causes. Natural variations happen over millions of years. Scientific research shows us that the last ice age ended around 11,000 years ago and since then, global temperature has been increasing. Climate change? Its inevitable as anything else.

We are still in the Ice Age and variations of a degree over a decade doesn't prove much and has been happening for billions of years

The Global Warming fantasy hysteria has made for some pretty cool plots for movies.

The Day After Tomorrow
The Colony
SnowPiercer
The Last Winter
Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age

Wait....my mistake....those are all plots about GLOBAL COOLING!!!

LOL....

PS:  I am reminded that in the fanatical mind of the naive yet blissful acolyte of the True Faith of Gaia, Cooling is Warming:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html

Okay, so looking for Warming movies, I find really, really bad plots.

Storm Cell
Waterworld
An Inconvenient Truth(y)
Lost City Raiders
Greedy Lying Bastards
2012
NYC:  Tornado Terror

Why?  Why are these so dumb and insipid?

Let's have ..... Sharknado ......

climate change caused by the behavior or activity conducted by excessive yag man against the universe, the establishment of chemical factories that produce smoke and CO2, causing thinning of the ozone layer, the use of cooling alamt fron the home we also result in the depletion of the ozone layer, the depletion of the ozone layer ate climate change on the planet earth was going on, like a greenhouse, there will be global warming on the earth, the melting of ice at the north pole and south resulted in rising sea levels, and flooding everywhere
hopefully our awareness of global warming and climate change more and more, so that we do not engage in activities that could lead to global warming ...  ::)

Very pretty sentences but not backed up by facts or science, it's witchcraft!

We are still in Ice Age and CO2 levels can go up tremendously without affecting life


In the 60s the self called climatologists said we had only 20years left but their models and predictions were false then in the 70s they had new models that were false, in the 80s it was the same, in the 90s...it was the same and in the 2000s they had new predictions and models and they receive a lot of attention, except 14 years later their predictions were not verified so we can say their predictions are shi.tty and they are unlucky as well because they could have randomly guessed right once or twice

When we get a cool year now they say it is because of global warming as well so if the year is hot it is global warming and if it is cold it is because of the global warming as well so they may get correct predictions this time but does it make sense and is it back up by science?

Climate is very hard to predict and if you mix media, politics and fame if you talk about global warming you get a group of guys to say very loudly things that are not back up by science, be smart and do your due diligence please!

Hey Dhani, I don't think that's right.

Ozone, no problem.
Greenhouse, nope.
Rising sea levels and flooding everywhere, nope.

Those are all predictions that didn't work out.

They are all ideas now being used to scare people into paying taxes.

Awe come on.

Just think...It's all our fault, our nasty SUVs.  That caused global warming and the sharks grew wings and cruise the air.  They are a threat only to smaller airplanes.  But when they get hungry....

It will rain sharks and they are hungry and eat us.