Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,076
#3,076
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Yes I am catholic and yes I am very familiar with Jesuits. "Good stewards of earth" is referring to how we should take care of what we have, ie "dont get drunk and crash your Oil tanker into a reef". God gave us natural resources for us to use. Yes that means God is okay with us fracking a gas well so everyone can stay warm in the winter.

Yes I know who Francis Assisi is, I have even been his burial site. Assisi founded the Franciscan monks who are know for living in poverty and giving everything up to follow God. Pope Francis chose the name, because we live in a materialistic, throw away society and he is trying to change that. You may think he is trying to promote socialistic ideas, I think he is trying to highlight our wasteful, throw away society. You may think he is trying to push recycling and forced redistribution. I know he is talking about abolishing Abortion, which you "GW pushers" hate because more people on this planet means we are using more natural resources.
Click to expand...

Global warming = population control = abortion. Smooth. How do you reconcile environmental stewardship with the indiscriminate exploitation of said environment? And are you implying the Pope isn’t a dirty commie?

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism
 
#3,077
#3,077
BartW said:
You just make it so easy :)

If you'd read the rest of the wiki, heck even just the same section, you'd see Darwin was a devout Christian. He agonized over his theory for decades (until he was forced to publish or get scooped) precisely because he had trouble reconciling it with his religious beliefs. Darwin did veer towards agnosticism later in life following the death of his daughter. Anywho, the theory of evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin states that

1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive (Malthus)
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable

Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. No mention of abiogenesis or atheism anywhere.

It's apparent you don't have sufficient background to attempt to participate in this discussion. I recommend Evolution by Edward J. Larson.
Click to expand...


Of course it's impossible to know the absolute truth without some uncertainty.
 
#3,078
#3,078
BartW said:
Interesting read. We’ll need nuclear to at least help bridge the gap between fossil fuels and alternative energy. The stigma associated with the word ‘nuclear’ is ridiculous.

To your questions, the goal was to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 (UNFCC) and reduce them by 5% by 2012 (Kyoto) with the ultimate aim of keeping atmospheric CO2 concentration below 450 ppm. Of course we’re nowhere close to stabilizing or even slowing emissions; they continue to accelerate. But that’s no reason to throw your arms up and say “F it, we’re boned.” There’s still plenty we can do to mitigate the damage and avoid the worst case scenarios. The longer we wait the more it'll cost us.

As for your “decimate the economy” comment, I’d take a look at the carbon tax link in your article. Cap-and-trade (a Republican idea) has proven effective in the past. Many countries already have some form of carbon pricing. The economic gloom and doom narrative is just good old fashioned scaremongering
Click to expand...


So you're saying the US should invade every country that doesn't comply with the standards it sets but doesn't comply with themselves?
 
#3,081
#3,081
govols/cc said:
How do you begin to reduce emissions? What substantial difference will the United States make when we're still dependent on fossil fuels? When China & the rest of the world says to "F off" what can we do?
Click to expand...
You're conveniently ignoring that most of the rest of the world has already implemented carbon pricing despite the reluctance of the US, China, and Russia. US action on climate is a necessary first step toward a broader international agreement, which will surely include sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

Funny that your first thought is "INVADE!" though. Perhaps by that time we'll have another R in office with some big, hairy, monkey balls who's willing to invade anyone and everyone instead of threatening pu$$y-azz economic sanctions. Maybe then the world will respect us again!!11!1! :finger3: Obama!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,082
#3,082
BartW said:
You're conveniently ignoring that most of the rest of the world has already implemented carbon pricing despite the reluctance of the US, China, and Russia. US action on climate is a necessary first step toward a broader international agreement, which will surely include sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

Funny that your first thought is "INVADE!" though. Perhaps by that time we'll have another R in office with some big, hairy, monkey balls who's willing to invade anyone and everyone instead of threatening pu$$y-azz economic sanctions. Maybe then the world will respect us again!!11!1! :finger3: Obama!
Click to expand...

You're so in love with carbon pricing. Get the f over carbon pricing. Move on to something not so damn worthless.
 
#3,083
#3,083
tumscalcium said:
You're so in love with carbon pricing. Get the f over carbon pricing. Move on to something not so damn worthless.
Click to expand...

I was merrily joking about HAARP and the Pope and SV until your camp brought up the economic collapse talking point again. But sure, let's move on to something else. How about the insurance industry's response to climate change?

Insuring the Apocalypse
Climate change: Get ready or get sued
No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business
Like any industry, the reinsurers and insurers stay in business by not losing money year after year. To accomplish that, they have to turn ever-greater portions of “unexpected” losses stemming from the weather into “expected” losses, which requires that they become adept at risk modelling.

Reinsurers and insurers lose money when they misjudge risks that come back to bite them. To reduce their own risk profiles, the insurers have to become expert at matching the premiums to the estimated risk. Charging too little for, say, flood risk in a region that is becoming flood-prone is bad business. Equally, charging too much for premiums on natural catastrophes that are not on the rise, like earthquakes, is bad business because it scares away potential insurance buyers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,084
#3,084
BartW said:
You just make it so easy :)

If you'd read the rest of the wiki, heck even just the same section, you'd see Darwin was a devout Christian. He agonized over his theory for decades (until he was forced to publish or get scooped) precisely because he had trouble reconciling it with his religious beliefs. Darwin did veer towards agnosticism later in life following the death of his daughter. Anywho, the theory of evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin states that

1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive (Malthus)
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable

Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. No mention of abiogenesis or atheism anywhere.

It's apparent you don't have sufficient background to attempt to participate in this discussion. I recommend Evolution by Edward J. Larson.
Click to expand...

Yes I read the whole article but the only pertinent point was what Darwin actually wrote. You're flailing.
 
#3,085
#3,085
govols/cc said:
How do you begin to reduce emissions? What substantial difference will the United States make when we're still dependent on fossil fuels? When China & the rest of the world says to "F off" what can we do?
Click to expand...
Good grief. This has nothing to do with the environment. Bart is a liberal statist. This is about winning and nothing else.
 
#3,086
#3,086
Sandvol said:
Good grief. This has nothing to do with the environment. Bart is a liberal statist. This is about winning and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Just trying to feel like he didn't waste a few years on a worthless "education". I'm sure he'll use it for something not even close to his cause eventually.
 
#3,087
#3,087
Sandvol said:
Yes I read the whole article but the only pertinent point was what Darwin actually wrote. You're flailing.
Click to expand...
Your quote was from 1879: more than 20 years after On the Origin of Species and 40 years after the Beagle voyages. He studied theology at Cambridge (Christ's College) and intended to join the clergy after he visited the tropics.

Evolution != atheism. Deal with it.
Sandvol said:
Good grief. This has nothing to do with the environment. Bart is a liberal statist. This is about winning and nothing else.
Click to expand...
And the anti-environmental stereotypes just keep flowing... So much for not politicizing the issue. I've never voted blue but don't let that deter you.
govols/cc said:
Just trying to feel like he didn't waste a few years on a worthless "education". I'm sure he'll use it for something not even close to his cause eventually.
Click to expand...
ahhh-education-put-it-away-put-it-away-.jpg


Yeah I can't imagine my geology, physics, or math degrees will ever be useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,088
#3,088
BartW said:
Your quote was from 1879: more than 20 years after On the Origin of Species and 40 years after the Beagle voyages. He studied theology at Cambridge (Christ's College) and intended to join the clergy after he visited the tropics.

Evolution != atheism. Deal with it.

And the anti-environmental stereotypes just keep flowing... So much for not politicizing the issue. I've never voted blue but don't let that deter you.
ahhh-education-put-it-away-put-it-away-.jpg


Yeah I can't imagine my geology, physics, or math degrees will ever be useful.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there is no possibility in the near future that at the very least the US, can ever switch from fossil fuels right?
 
#3,092
#3,092
BigOrangeTrain said:
Antarctic Melting Reports Omit Key Facts

Yet another. Boy for a 97% consensus, there sure are a lot that question it.
Click to expand...

Yet another derpy article. It's 97% of those active in climate research. "Some random dude" doesn't count
BigOrangeTrain said:
So you cannot answer the question?
Click to expand...
Sigh, I figured that would go over your head. Rephrase your nonsensical question and I'll consider answering. It doesn't have to be a good question, I only ask that it's coherent. In the meantime...


tumblr_mtpxui8RPY1r4gei2o1_400.gif
 
#3,093
#3,093
BartW said:
Global warming = population control = abortion. Smooth. How do you reconcile environmental stewardship with the indiscriminate exploitation of said environment? And are you implying the Pope isn’t a dirty commie?

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism
Click to expand...

The Colbert Report? I don't watch that. If I want to hear what the pope has to say, I'll actually read his Encyclicals.

God gave us Natural Resources for us to use. Trees are meant to be cut down to build us shelter, gas is meant to be used to heat our homes, oil should be used to transport us. Etc etc

People who push Global Warming are no doubt about it, also pushing Abortion as a way to control population.
 
#3,094
#3,094
BigOrangeTrain said:
You do realize that there is no possibility in the near future that at the very least the US, can ever switch from fossil fuels right?
Click to expand...

I'd much rather the free market when or if make that decision instead of some liberal mastermind.
 
Last edited:
#3,095
#3,095
VolsNSkinsFan said:
God gave us Natural Resources for us to use. Trees are meant to be cut down to build us shelter, gas is meant to be used to heat our homes, oil should be used to transport us. Etc etc

People who push Global Warming are no doubt about it, also pushing Abortion as a way to control population.
Click to expand...

By that logic, god gave us doctors to provide abortions and kittens and puppies for backyard barbeques.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,100
#3,100
Evolution =/= atheism

I'm an agnostic myself but I've done enough critical thinking that I recognize the two are not mutually exclusive. God could have used evolution to create life on earth.

My impression of BartW:

"You're question is retarded. I'm a scientist. You're a conspiracy theorist if you oppose public policy based on inconclusive science.

See how stupid you are and how smart and sophisticated I am?"

stupid-people_o_308886.jpg


snwnk8.jpg


frabz-God-must-love-stupid-people-He-made-SO-many-76a26e.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top