Dear Environmentalists, please stop ranting about global warming

[Lethn]

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 if you want to 'save' the planet, go invest in some bio-engineered bacteria already!

[1715310263]

1715310263

[evilscoop]

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

[RodeoX]

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.

[Lethn]

Yes environmentalists, and stop claiming there were dinosaurs.

What does dinosaurs have to do with environmentalism?

[greyhawk]

Yes environmentalists, and stop claiming there were dinosaurs.

What does dinosaurs have to do with environmentalism?

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

[RodeoX]

Yes environmentalists, and stop claiming there were dinosaurs.

What does dinosaurs have to do with environmentalism?

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...".

[Lethn]

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.

[myrkul]

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...".

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.

[psybits]

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 if you want to 'save' the planet, go invest in some bio-engineered bacteria already!

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.

[evilscoop]

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

[psybits]

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?

[RodeoX]

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...".

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.

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.

[vite]

Yes environmentalists, and stop claiming there were dinosaurs.

What does dinosaurs have to do with environmentalism?

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...".

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...

[myrkul]

It was warmer 10k+ years ago. And really warm in the distant past. The concern is about now.

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"

[psybits]

It was warmer 10k+ years ago. And really warm in the distant past. The concern is about now.

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 

[myrkul]

It was warmer 10k+ years ago. And really warm in the distant past. The concern is about now.

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 

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?

[FirstAscent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[myrkul]

And... ?

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.