I'm sick of hearing the same old dumb arguments from you guys and I hope those of you who truly need this have the chest to actually watch it.
if you're sick of it, just stay away and ignore the board.....
it's strange to start another thread that has been argued to ad nauseam....more specifically using a video from 2014....
also, nice vagueness your highness.....what are attempting to argue?
most on this board are in agreement the 'why' has yet to be fully defined
I also don't remember anyone arguing against developing alternative energy sources to help relieve dependence on fossil fuel demand
all the guy is arguing is to invest in alternative forms sooner than later.....last time I checked, that's happening
hopefully, you understand that if humans are actually responsible for warming, then reducing the population is the only logical conclusion as a solution in conjunction with clean energy solutions....and more puppies are being generated every day...
Those items don't really address my reservations about the global warming/climate change movement. What part of that says that we must implement command and control policies that will be extremely expensive and disruptive in order to achieve minuscule impact on the problem?
I'm quite certain that if we turned the free market loose to find solutions, we'd have better answers (more impact for less negative consequences) in 10 years than the command-and-control approach has produced in the last 50 years.
I think climate change is real. I don't know if the long-term effects are as dire as the fear-mongers are claiming. But I do know that free enterprise is geared to come up with solutions instead of problems, and right now all we are getting is a lot of gnashing and moaning about problems with precious little in the way of effective solutions.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2016 11:50 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(02-09-2016 02:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote: hopefully, you understand that if humans are actually responsible for warming, then reducing the population is the only logical conclusion as a solution in conjunction with clean energy solutions....and more puppies are being generated every day...
Yep, been thinking that for years. Each billion tacked on needs goods and services, from cradle to grave, and those goods and services are created by industries and factories.
As long as people keep pumping out 4+ kids, and mostly in poorer countries least suitable for rapid population growth like Nigeria and Pakistan, product-producing factories will have to keep up with ever increasing demand.
I'm sick of hearing the same old dumb arguments from you guys and I hope those of you who truly need this have the chest to actually watch it.
if you're sick of it, just stay away and ignore the board.....
it's strange to start another thread that has been argued to ad nauseam....more specifically using a video from 2014....
also, nice vagueness your highness.....what are attempting to argue?
most on this board are in agreement the 'why' has yet to be fully defined
I also don't remember anyone arguing against developing alternative energy sources to help relieve dependence on fossil fuel demand
all the guy is arguing is to invest in alternative forms sooner than later.....last time I checked, that's happening
hopefully, you understand that if humans are actually responsible for warming, then reducing the population is the only logical conclusion as a solution in conjunction with clean energy solutions....and more puppies are being generated every day...
Which is how come I sometimes think we humans as a species are comparable to termites or pine beetles.
Sorry, I have a hard time taking seriously any scientific discussion from a metrosexual with a stegosaurus mousse hairjob who thinks its cool to wear aviators inside and who is walking youtube billboard. Didnt even watch it.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2016 10:15 AM by UofMstateU.)
(02-09-2016 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: Sorry, I have a hard time taking seriously any scientific discussion from a metrosexual with a stegosaurus mousse hairjob who thinks its cool to wear aviators inside and who is walking youtube billboard. Didnt even watch it.
I'm sick of hearing the same old dumb arguments from you guys and I hope those of you who truly need this have the chest to actually watch it.
I watched it. I don't think you'd find anyone on this board who would object to the fact that CO2 have increased since the start of the Industrial Revolution and that efforts should be made to reduce and eventually eliminate that byproduct of modernity.
The problem is that the solutions proposed don't actually accomplish that nor do they acknowledge that energy conversion will inherently have some type of byproduct that must be accounted for.
(02-09-2016 11:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: I watched it. I don't think you'd find anyone on this board who would object to the fact that CO2 have increased since the start of the Industrial Revolution and that efforts should be made to reduce and eventually eliminate that byproduct of modernity.
The problem is that the solutions proposed don't actually accomplish that nor do they acknowledge that energy conversion will inherently have some type of byproduct that must be accounted for.
Exactly.
This is the issue that the AGW/climate change activists don't want to have to debate, because the know that they have no good answers.
It's much easier just to say, "OMG, the sky is falling, the earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 100 years, the sky is falling, and that will destroy life as we know it, the sky is falling, so we need to shut down all coal-fired power plants right now, so it will only be 1.95 degrees warmer in 100 years. Did we mention that the sky is falling?"
(02-09-2016 11:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: I watched it. I don't think you'd find anyone on this board who would object to the fact that CO2 have increased since the start of the Industrial Revolution and that efforts should be made to reduce and eventually eliminate that byproduct of modernity.
The problem is that the solutions proposed don't actually accomplish that nor do they acknowledge that energy conversion will inherently have some type of byproduct that must be accounted for.
Exactly.
This is the issue that the AGW/climate change activists don't want to have to debate, because the know that they have no good answers.
It's much easier just to say, "OMG, the sky is falling, the earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 100 years, the sky is falling, and that will destroy life as we know it, the sky is falling, so we need to shut down all coal-fired power plants right now, so it will only be 1.95 degrees warmer in 100 years. Did we mention that the sky is falling?"
Even worse, they mentioned the poles melting by 2012.
(02-09-2016 02:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote: hopefully, you understand that if humans are actually responsible for warming, then reducing the population is the only logical conclusion as a solution in conjunction with clean energy solutions....and more puppies are being generated every day...
Yep, been thinking that for years. Each billion tacked on needs goods and services, from cradle to grave, and those goods and services are created by industries and factories.
As long as people keep pumping out 4+ kids, and mostly in poorer countries least suitable for rapid population growth like Nigeria and Pakistan, product-producing factories will have to keep up with ever increasing demand.
population control is one of the bigger macro issues that most don't want to discuss as being a problem (exclude china)....the humanitarians think that prolonging life is a good thing and have difficulty understanding the Ponce de León cause/effect
line 1 of sig is the new world order in this cuntry now...
it's a simple numbers vs. efficiency gain game at this point....
/
13 Misconceptions About Global Warming
![[Image: image.jpg]](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4f61c87b69bedd6e1b000000/image.jpg)
