1.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    Ok, RS and other liberal try not to cop-out on these questions...

    Do we need to reduce the tempature of the Earth?
    If so then by how much?
    What must be done to 'cool' the Earth to the liberal's idea of perfect tempature?
    How much will it cost to do this ^?
    What will the economic repercussions be from spending that money to cool ur Earf?

    BONUS QUESTON
    *How many scientis will get grants and how much more power will our politicians get to 'solve' this issue???? MUahahaha

    1. No. We just need to stop it from getting too much hotter.
    2. See above.
    3. Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
    4. Not as much as failing to do so will cost.
    5. The economic repercussions will pale in contrast to failing to act.

    6. Lots and probably not much.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  2. what's the best temp for the earth to be?
    Thread StarterAdd norcaljeff to Rail
  3.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    what's the best temp for the earth to be?

    THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DEGREES
    Add RUBINH to Rail
  4.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    what's the best temp for the earth to be?

    The one to which our entire economy/infrastructure is now adapted to?

    The "?" is to appease ncj. I know he can never disagree with a "?"
    Add userid363 to Rail
  5. adapted to when? right this second? in the 1950's? april 29th, 1992?

    and why?
    Edited By: norcaljeff Jul 7th, 2011 at 12:58 AM
    Thread StarterAdd norcaljeff to Rail
  6. According to the UN, we need to invest $1.9 trillion per year for the next 40 years to build green economies to "end poverty and avert the likely catastrophic impacts of climate change and environmental degradation."

    So, $76 trillion and we all live happily ever after. It should be noted however, that the number does not take into account inflation, and that just two years ago the UN estimate was $6 trillion spent over 10 years. Whatever the cost, it's well worth it imo.

    http://www.un.org/en/development/des...1wesspr_en.pdf
    Add WeyNot to Rail
  7.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    lol at nuclear power haters. ncj is spot on re: this topic.

    just stopped by to post this. it was really weird reading a norcaljeff post and thinking "exactly." Minus the part where he said nothing happened, of course. thats just dumb.
    Add Neeek to Rail
  8.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    adapted to when? right this second? in the 1950's? april 29th, 1992?

    and why?

    Your "magic number" defense is akin to niptuck's "exactly how much should we spend?" question, and there is no answer that will satisfy either of you because your answer is simply "there is no # therefore we do nothing."

    It's like me asking you this: Exactly how many terrorist activities/lost lives did the war in Iraq save? Can't answer? Bad war!
    Add userid363 to Rail
  9.  

    I think the future is gonna get real crazy in 30 years when the world becomes even more populated and there will be even less land space. A lot of islands are soon gonna be underwater.

    Aren't you kind of ignoring all the land that would become more suitable for habitation such as most of Canada, Greenland and Siberia? Wouldn't global warming create more arable land than it destroys?
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    what's the best temp for the earth to be?

    several mirrion degrees

    Add ginwilly to Rail
  11. lol I saw the R. I thought Willard handled it with class but you could tell he didn't really say what he wanted to.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  12.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog View Post

    1. No. We just need to stop it from getting too much hotter.
    2. See above.
    3. Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
    4. Not as much as failing to do so will cost.
    5. The economic repercussions will pale in contrast to failing to act.

    6. Lots and probably not much
    .

    So, you're saying we should accept a weakened economy as opposed to what exactly? What must we act now to avoid? How dire is this global warm... errrr... global cool... errr... climate change? Must we act now much like we had to in the 70's?



    Or maybe we did act?

    re 6: Really? "Probably not much"???? You can't see any politicians using any supposed "crisis" to gain more power? What was it Rahm Emannuel said btw?
    Add RWill2073 to Rail
  13. it depends on if they stand lengthwise or widthwise. Most likely people would fall off as the island tips and the weight lost would right itself. I wouldn't worry about it.

    And User, Carl Sagan wasn't a flash in the pan guy, he was the TRUTH!!
    Edited By: ginwilly Jul 7th, 2011 at 03:25 AM
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  14.  
    Originally Posted by Neeek View Post

    just stopped by to post this. it was really weird reading a norcaljeff post and thinking "exactly." Minus the part where he said nothing happened, of course. thats just dumb.

    can i join? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    i have a dream of an issue on which LS, neeek, ncj, and i all agree
     2
    Add warden to Rail
  15. Doubt Carl Sagan spent 40 years believing in global cooling, as more information came in (don't know though, didn't do the research). Isn't he an astronomer, though?

    Also, on a different note, Howard Linzen, or whatever his name is, the holy saint scientist of deniers, believes that GW is at least partly anthropogenic. His main complaints were reserved for the policy section of the IPCC report.
    Add userid363 to Rail
  16. User I was teasing about Sagan. But it really was more than just a flash in the pan. It was pretty much the consensus within the climatologists but there were some that were saying the opposite could occur. It is very much like now. They even wanted to cover ice caps with soot to keep us from another ice age.

    The science has advance quite a bit in the last 40 years and will continue to advance. I stand by the science may be very compelling but is definitely not settled.

    The thing scientists from that era to today all agreed on is that we are causing bad things. CFC and aerosol are quickly becoming things of the past.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  17.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    It was pretty much the consensus within the climatologists but there were some that were saying the opposite could occur.

    I am skeptical of this.

    GW was first put forth as a theory in the late 60s (?). It has gained consensus for the last 40 years.
    Add userid363 to Rail
  18. the consensus was Global Cooling, not GW.
    there were several books, time magazine, newsweek, the national science board and on and on. There were a lot of skeptics back then too though and most admitted back then that we really don't know.

    check it out man
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  19.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    Ok, RS and other liberal try not to cop-out on these questions...

    Do we need to reduce the tempature of the Earth?
    If so then by how much?
    What must be done to 'cool' the Earth to the liberal's idea of perfect tempature?
    How much will it cost to do this ^?
    What will the economic repercussions be from spending that money to cool ur Earf?

    BONUS QUESTON
    *How many scientis will get grants and how much more power will our politicians get to 'solve' this issue???? MUahahaha

    (1) 350ppm CO2 is one generally accepted goal number to avoid serious implications.
    (2) See above
    (3) There is no "liberals idea" of a perfect temperature. Natural and potentially undesired things happen when the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 become very high. For all of human history before ~150 years ago, we were at ~250ppm. We are now at ~390, and increasing at ~2ppm per year. There's also a lot of unrealized inertia in the system (i.e. even if we cut emissions to zero tomorrow we would still see warming for the next century). 350ppm is one of the most accepted goal numbers.
    (4) No idea. Not an economist.
    (5) No idea. Not an economist.
    (6) Probably a few. But if they weren't getting grants for this they would be getting grants for solving other problems and trying to make your life better.

     
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    the consensus was Global Cooling, not GW.
    there were several books, time magazine, newsweek, the national science board and on and on. There were a lot of skeptics back then too though and most admitted back then that we really don't know.

    check it out man

    Allow me to type this in caps so everyone can read it.

    GLOBAL COOLING WAS NEVER SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

    I mean, FFS, this is from the wiki that you cited:

     

    Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]

    Edited By: Hoooo Jul 7th, 2011 at 04:12 AM
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  20. you can be so stubborn in your defense of GW rocket. In 1974-75 it was so much so the consensus even the CIA did a scare paper on it.

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/200...nsus-and-more/

    granted, there were many scientists who disagreed, just as there are many who disagree with the level of hysteria now.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  21.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    granted, there were many scientists who disagreed, just as there are many who disagree with the level of hysteria now.

    No. Literally the worst false equivalence of all time.
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  22. cool, I should get a plaque or something.

    It's hard to debate with someone who insists all opposition was welcomed when there is proof in black and white otherwise. By the friggin HEAD of IPCC.

    You destroy in the proof and do a damn good job of it but denying things that are easily proven only adds fuel to the skeptical fire. It would help the cause much more if you said "yeah, that particular very powerful scientist was a dick and deserved to lose his position for his sketchy actions". Denying it ever happened doesn't make it so.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  23.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    you can be so stubborn in your defense of GW rocket. In 1974-75 it was so much so the consensus even the CIA did a scare paper on it.

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/200...nsus-and-more/

    granted, there were many scientists who disagreed, just as there are many who disagree with the level of hysteria now.

    Just stop pretending that you know what the word "consensus" means. Seriously, this is just retardedly stupid, even for you, and that is saying a hell of a lot. There was no consensus for global cooling. Fucking hell.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  24. no idea what you're talking about

    IPCC is a giant literature review. They don't do research.
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  25. Oh Gawd Rocket. Literary rags were threatened if they published articles that disagreed with GW. You have argued repeatedly that this isn't true.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  26. I don't trust the consensus that smoking causes cancer, because there used to be a consensus that bloodletting cured a multitude of illnesses.

    I also don't trust the consensus that HIV causes AIDS, because Thabo Mbeki doesn't believe it, and has a scientist to back him up. You never hear from him though; I wish we would quit trying to silence the dissent.
    Edited By: Neeek Jul 7th, 2011 at 04:38 AM
    Add Neeek to Rail
  27. leeches are making a huge come back, as are maggots in wound care. The point Neeek isn't that they were right, the point is they were wrong. Just like healthy smoking was wrong. That's the cool thing about science, we make advances, what we thought was true today we find wasn't.

    Please don't take this as me saying the multitude of current climatologists are wrong, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying science makes advances.

     
    Originally Posted by Underdog View Post

    Just stop pretending that you know what the word "consensus" means. Seriously, this is just retardedly stupid, even for you, and that is saying a hell of a lot. There was no consensus for global cooling. Fucking hell.

    read the CIA report you exceptionally well grounded person you.
    also this article explains a lot of the misinformation back then while concluding "the consensus" was wrong.
    http://omniclimate.files.wordpress.c...pxiii-text.jpg
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  28. Who gives a fuck if the CIA prepared a paper for Global Cooling? The CIA has reports for dealing with alien invasions; does that mean the scientific consensus favors the possibility of an alien invasion? There are also CIA reports for dealing with psychic powers like telekinesis. Does this mean the scientific consensus is that telekinesis is possible?

    There was no consensus in the scientific community that global cooling was happening or an imminent threat. Repeating it over and over or finding a CIA report on it won't make it so.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  29.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog View Post

    Repeating it over and over or finding a CIA report on it won't make it so.

    global cooling.
    Add EyeKnows to Rail
  30. The CIA mentions a "consensus among scientists". I would think they would know more about it back in 1974 than you do. But hey, la la la, i'm not reading something that proves me wrong, I'll just call people retarded while looking retarded, it's the dog way.

    I'm UNDERDOG!! I know more than the CIA, look at me everybody!!
    Edited By: ginwilly Jul 7th, 2011 at 04:52 AM
    Add ginwilly to Rail

Similar Threads