Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@ShawnOL said:
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
No, it's not. But, the Earth IS warming. This is not a matter of politics or speculation. It is a matter of scientific fact. Now, with that said, the causes are legion, and our contribution is a fact, but to what degree? I don't know. It's hard to tell when multiple belief systems clash loudly.
But, if I take my temperature when I'm sick, and the thermometer reads 100.6F, and I use 12 or 15 different thermometers and they all say 100.6F and I insist they're all wrong? Then I'm the snowflake. Even if Rush Limbaugh said that all my thermometers must be wrong, then he's a snowflake too.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@ShawnOL said:
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
No, it's not. But, the Earth IS warming. This is not a matter of politics or speculation. It is a matter of scientific fact. Now, with that said, the causes are legion, and our contribution is a fact, but to what degree? I don't know. It's hard to tell when multiple belief systems clash loudly.
But, if I take my temperature when I'm sick, and the thermometer reads 100.6F, and I use 12 or 15 different thermometers and they all say 100.6F and I insist they're all wrong? Then I'm the snowflake. Even if Rush Limbaugh said that all my thermometers must be wrong, then he's a snowflake too.
Amos, you're right; but let's not conflate your factual "global warming" with the shibboleth "global warming". The shibboleth leaves off both the first word: anthropogenic and the last word: apocalypse. Yet, for global warming bedwetters, those are the crucial parts, is the bits that they leave off: It is Man's Fault and it is an Apocalypse. It's not about global warming; much less about the more tepid term "climate change". It's about how God is going to punish us for our sins unless we repent now. It's some sort of Jungian archetype, a nightmare that recurs thru history. Man Made Global Warming Apocalypse should be their full term.
Apocalypse is the part that had throngs trek to Rome for the Final Days in 1000 A.D. only to bring the Black Death home with them after. Apocalypse is the bit that convinced Jim Jones' zealots to drink KoolAid in Guyana. It's why priests plucked living hearts atop Teotihuacan.
Apocalypse is where "believe" comes in. One may observe the fact of warmer weather reports, or dispute the fact that data has been doctored, yet still not believe in apocalypse. Your snowflake would simply panic. He needs to believe.
Whether Earth is or is not warming is fairly irrelevant to the panic.
We all know that.
Panic satisfies an appetite.
Rush may have disputed warming; I dunno, cause I never listened. Attacking any idea because of the man is ad hominem, either way. If you want to go all ad hominem, I know that the founder of the Weather Channel disputes it. Look him up, if his testimony has not been scrubbed off YouTube. I believe the founder of Greenpeace said likewise. I recall hearing I think it was him on Joe Rogan, back before Joe moved to Spotify. Years ago, when the whole mania first started, some thousands of scientists signed a petition disputing it, didn't they? I dunno all their names. Prolly not notorious enough to work as ad hominem anything. I suspect their first name is not likely to be "Grant", though. They claimed to have fifteen times more PhDs in the specialty among them than those who signed the IPCC report.
Or you could just ask AOC: "Hey, barkeep, bring me a mimosa and apocalypse, please." There's ad womaninem.
People like to sing out just the half the argument they think they can win and ignore the rest. That's how you get headlines about "people who don't believe in global warming".
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
^^ good points @webmost . My inclusion of Rush, who I did listen to, wasn't ad hominem attack but rather pointing to the very shibboleth you're talking about. People totally denied even the remote possibility of global warming, because Rush said so. It's only ad hominem if I'm trying to say "that must be bunk because that's what Rush believed". I'm not saying anything like that.
It is the exaggeration, the sky-is-falling attitude, not in reference to Shawn's comment but rather the politicization by both sides that gets me.
For instance, I don't appreciate being lectured by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Jane Fonda, or Al Gore about my need to conserve. If I ran every internal combustion engine I own 24/7, and changed my thermostat 46 times a day I couldn't come close to filling the pinky-toe of any one of those individuals "carbon footprint".
These, and other such luminaries, seem to never mention the fact that when Mt. St. Helens blew her top in the 80's she released more CO2 in two weeks than all of the combined efforts of all of mankind for the previous 500 years of human activity. Also, the primary source of global warming, the Sun. Is the radiant heat from the sun a constant? What about solar flares? What about cyclic fluctuation? The alarmists never seem to want to mention any of that.
I also resent the other side, who deny basic measurable science, just because NP, AOC et al are using the issue to try to manipulate public opinion and gain power through fear. Yes, they're doing all that, but that doesn't mean the thermometer is wrong.
Still, global warming exists, and we are part of it. That being the case, it would be nice to think that we're reasonably doing whatever it is that we can do to help slow it. I'll readily admit that there may be nothing we can do, but we could try.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Amos_Umwhat said:
when Mt. St. Helens blew her top in the 80's she released more CO2 in two weeks than all of the combined efforts of all of mankind for the previous 500 years of human activity.
That's an interesting factoid which I've not heard before.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year. Yes, there are uncertainties; yes, there's annual variation; yes, it's easy to get led astray if you think that Mt. Etna is typical, rather than the unusually large emitter of CO2 that it is. When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere can be determined from both ice core measurements, which easily go back hundreds of thousands of years, and by atmospheric monitoring stations, like those atop Mauna Loa. The increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1700s is staggering.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere can be determined from both ice core... [+] CIRES & NOAA
In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
I will admit that mine came from watching a TV show, some documentary about carbon dioxide emissions. I did not fact-check, but accepted that what was being told had been fact-checked by the producers of the show. It struck me as staggering. This has been some years back.
I watch a LOT of National Geographic documentaries and related shows. Can't say for sure. I remember them stressing the 500 years, plus showing lots of footage of Industrial Revolution smoke stacks, etc.
I'm curious, is that 29 billion tons a year the current amount? Or, is that an average over some other period of time?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Have to remember. The Earth has been changing, since the, well, beginning of time. Has been been part if the effect? I have no doubt, but scientists say that each volcanic eruption has more of an effect than man ever could.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
I didn't hit the disagree button on you, but I don't know brother. Edward's article from Forbes sort of quantifies it for me. They measured that shít.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank said:
I didn't hit the disagree button on you, but I don't know brother. Edward's article from Forbes sort of quantifies it for me. They measured that shít.
Oh, come on. Nobody measures that schidt, Frank. What they do, they pull out their pocket calcs and start making hypotheses. You know that. That's how they come up with so vastly different numbers, is cause hypotheses differ, probably in proportion to where modelers seek grants.
Nobody captured all the CO2 from Mt St. Helens and put it on a scale.
Nobody captured all the CO2 from everybody's hearth fires over the last 500 years and weighed it out.
Estimates are not measurements. Assumptions begin with an a and two esses.
Most of all, there's important schidt they leave out. For example: say there's 8 billion ppl on the planet today. Say that, magically, the entire world could go completely solar and wind by the time there's 10 billion (yeah, right). Would your ten bil produce more or less CO2 by breathing, making solar cells, making windmills, making battery banks, erecting power lines to distribute it, and all the rest, than your eight bil make today? Never heard any pocket calc so much as touch the subject. But that's the crux, innit? If we were but a scant two billion sinners offending Gaia, would anybody have to worry whether polar bears go extinct?
Or how about this: Will we run out of rare earths to make electric schidt faster than we are running out of oil?
Back when the commons were enclosed so that a ruling class could make a fortune off their sooty factories ... guess what? Them Luddites were right! Industry did mean the end of the world as they knew it. There's plenty who still regret industry wasn't stopped in time. Proved unstoppable. So we adapted. Here we are. Been a wild ride.
Long as the guys in lab coats are willing to speculate, let's put their pocket calcs to work on good news: If polar caps melt, will we enjoy enough new arable land in Canada and Siberia to feed an additional 2 billion sinners? Can Roughrider fans plant two crops a year in Saskatchewan, eh? Will the Sahara continue to green? Every time I get on the phone with someone who lives in Florida, I have to listen to them brag how warm the weather is. May I at least look forward to not having to listen to Floridians brag all Winter?
Nothing stays the same. Shove panic where it belongs and look ahead.
C O toot
Is in dispute
Moot soot
What a hoot
Okay, I'm gonna wrap a couple Cholitas right now. They've been setting overnight in a mold I scored by mail off a farmer in Slovenia who made them for egg money. Cholitas are Peruvian seco scored from Whole Leaf Tobacco in Akron OH. Peru puros, is what they are. Headless shorties. Except for Indonesian wrapper which I scored off FX Smith. Recently saw pics of sculptured stones showing ancient Peruvians smoking pipes. Our foremothers knew what they were doing refining new strains of smelly leaves, cause it sure smells intoxicating, I can tell you that. Now, we may daydream that the Inca who grew that seco marched her loaded vicuna to market, and that the Dayak who grew that wrapper trundled a load thru the jungle on her head. But this wunnerful baccy, much less the mold, sure didn't get into my hands via Akron and McSherrystown and USPS without oil. I guarantee.
CO2 at work. Love it.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
@VegasFrank said:
I didn't hit the disagree button on you, but I don't know brother. Edward's article from Forbes sort of quantifies it for me. They measured that shít.
Oh, come on. Nobody measures that schidt, Frank. What they do, they pull out their pocket calcs and start making hypotheses. You know that. That's how they come up with so vastly different numbers, is cause hypotheses differ, probably in proportion to where modelers seek grants.
>
Nobody captured all the CO2 from Mt St. Helens and put it on a scale.
Nobody captured all the CO2 from everybody's hearth fires over the last 500 years and weighed it out.
Estimates are not measurements. Assumptions begin with an a and two esses.
Well duh. Nobody saw the earth or the planets going around the sun, either. Nobody had a stopwatch on the earth's travel around the sun, but humanity figured out exactly how long it took...with measurements, not with the hubble and a stopwatch.
Most of all, there's important schidt they leave out. For example: say there's 8 billion ppl on the planet today. Say that, magically, the entire world could go completely solar and wind by the time there's 10 billion (yeah, right). Would your ten bil produce more or less CO2 by breathing, making solar cells, making windmills, making battery banks, erecting power lines to distribute it, and all the rest, than your eight bil make today? Never heard any pocket calc so much as touch the subject. But that's the crux, innit? If we were but a scant two billion sinners offending Gaia, would anybody have to worry whether polar bears go extinct?
My problem with this statement is that everyone is trying to put a political spin on scientific research. In my 45 trips around the Sun, have experienced that most, if not all of the time, this is done to argue the political point, not the scientific one. Worse yet, most of the time it's not even to argue the risks or benefits of an innovation like windmills. It's more because personalities that we don't like, like AOC, is for them, and political opponents of these people argue the science instead of arguing the person.
Sorry brother, I like reading your stuff, but you're no environmental scientist. I'll trust my doctor with doctor shït And I'll trust an environmental scientist with environmental stuff. No offense.
Or how about this: Will we run out of rare earths to make electric schidt faster than we are running out of oil?
And, this is how the argument is spun. This statement is nothing but pure rhetoric. If we start to fix one problem, we will encounter another one, so why fix the first one? If our ancestors followed this model, we'd still be trying to create fire and roll heavy crap down the trail using logs.
Funny how some here can speculate exactly how many votes were cast illegally with zero measurement and zero evidence and nothing but conjecture that was based on guys with pocket calculators, but when it comes to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and whether or not that CO2 is causing a global warming situation, it's all bullshít.
Back when the commons were enclosed so that a ruling class could make a fortune off their sooty factories ... guess what? Them Luddites were right! Industry did mean the end of the world as they knew it. There's plenty who still regret industry wasn't stopped in time. Proved unstoppable. So we adapted. Here we are. Been a wild ride.
Well of course it's all based on the almighty dollar! Of course wealth is The driver of all innovation! That concept is only about 10,000 years old...
Long as the guys in lab coats are willing to speculate, let's put their pocket calcs to work on good news: If polar caps melt, will we enjoy enough new arable land in Canada and Siberia to feed an additional 2 billion sinners? Can Roughrider fans plant two crops a year in Saskatchewan, eh? Will the Sahara continue to green? Every time I get on the phone with someone who lives in Florida, I have to listen to them brag how warm the weather is. May I at least look forward to not having to listen to Floridians brag all Winter?
This portion is just step two of the rhetorical process. Step one was why should I fix it when there will be new problems I'll have to solve? Step two is why should I fix it when my problems actually turn into other benefits?
Since we can't argue the facts, we'll just argue the conjecture because the scientists don't.
I don't know about you brother, but I don't want to live in Canada...
Nothing stays the same. Shove panic where it belongs and look ahead.
We will all be driving electric cars in 50 years, not because we ran out of oil, but because they'll be cheaper and better than The ones with combustion engines.
CO2 at work. Love it.
Love it! I'll never smoke a battery powered cigar...
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@ShawnOL said:
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
No, it's not. But, the Earth IS warming. This is not a matter of politics or speculation. It is a matter of scientific fact. Now, with that said, the causes are legion, and our contribution is a fact, but to what degree? I don't know. It's hard to tell when multiple belief systems clash loudly.
But, if I take my temperature when I'm sick, and the thermometer reads 100.6F, and I use 12 or 15 different thermometers and they all say 100.6F and I insist they're all wrong? Then I'm the snowflake. Even if Rush Limbaugh said that all my thermometers must be wrong, then he's a snowflake too.
Amos, you're right; but let's not conflate your factual "global warming" with the shibboleth "global warming". The shibboleth leaves off both the first word: anthropogenic and the last word: apocalypse. Yet, for global warming bedwetters, those are the crucial parts, is the bits that they leave off: It is Man's Fault and it is an Apocalypse. It's not about global warming; much less about the more tepid term "climate change". It's about how God is going to punish us for our sins unless we repent now. It's some sort of Jungian archetype, a nightmare that recurs thru history. Man Made Global Warming Apocalypse should be their full term.
Apocalypse is the part that had throngs trek to Rome for the Final Days in 1000 A.D. only to bring the Black Death home with them after. Apocalypse is the bit that convinced Jim Jones' zealots to drink KoolAid in Guyana. It's why priests plucked living hearts atop Teotihuacan.
Apocalypse is where "believe" comes in. One may observe the fact of warmer weather reports, or dispute the fact that data has been doctored, yet still not believe in apocalypse. Your snowflake would simply panic. He needs to believe.
Whether Earth is or is not warming is fairly irrelevant to the panic.
We all know that.
Panic satisfies an appetite.
Rush may have disputed warming; I dunno, cause I never listened. Attacking any idea because of the man is ad hominem, either way. If you want to go all ad hominem, I know that the founder of the Weather Channel disputes it. Look him up, if his testimony has not been scrubbed off YouTube. I believe the founder of Greenpeace said likewise. I recall hearing I think it was him on Joe Rogan, back before Joe moved to Spotify. Years ago, when the whole mania first started, some thousands of scientists signed a petition disputing it, didn't they? I dunno all their names. Prolly not notorious enough to work as ad hominem anything. I suspect their first name is not likely to be "Grant", though. They claimed to have fifteen times more PhDs in the specialty among them than those who signed the IPCC report.
Or you could just ask AOC: "Hey, barkeep, bring me a mimosa and apocalypse, please." There's ad womaninem.
People like to sing out just the half the argument they think they can win and ignore the rest. That's how you get headlines about "people who don't believe in global warming".
Unsure what there is to disagree with or flag in this post. @webmost is mostly right here, except I think that the side that 'dismisses' global warming think that everyone who wants to do something about global warming believes that there's an apocalypse surrounding it.
Clearly, @ShawnOL doesn't think much will change in his lifetime, so there's nothing to worry about now. Fair enough. I also think that there's no impending earth doom in my lifetime, either. However, I do think that man should actively try to slow it down because I think that there is a point of no return.
But, if you don't, then you don't. However, keep in mind that it's coming eithe3r way--so let's get past the denial stage and move on to acceptance.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Comments
Yes.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
No, it's not. But, the Earth IS warming. This is not a matter of politics or speculation. It is a matter of scientific fact. Now, with that said, the causes are legion, and our contribution is a fact, but to what degree? I don't know. It's hard to tell when multiple belief systems clash loudly.
But, if I take my temperature when I'm sick, and the thermometer reads 100.6F, and I use 12 or 15 different thermometers and they all say 100.6F and I insist they're all wrong? Then I'm the snowflake. Even if Rush Limbaugh said that all my thermometers must be wrong, then he's a snowflake too.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Amos, you're right; but let's not conflate your factual "global warming" with the shibboleth "global warming". The shibboleth leaves off both the first word: anthropogenic and the last word: apocalypse. Yet, for global warming bedwetters, those are the crucial parts, is the bits that they leave off: It is Man's Fault and it is an Apocalypse. It's not about global warming; much less about the more tepid term "climate change". It's about how God is going to punish us for our sins unless we repent now. It's some sort of Jungian archetype, a nightmare that recurs thru history. Man Made Global Warming Apocalypse should be their full term.
Apocalypse is the part that had throngs trek to Rome for the Final Days in 1000 A.D. only to bring the Black Death home with them after. Apocalypse is the bit that convinced Jim Jones' zealots to drink KoolAid in Guyana. It's why priests plucked living hearts atop Teotihuacan.
Apocalypse is where "believe" comes in. One may observe the fact of warmer weather reports, or dispute the fact that data has been doctored, yet still not believe in apocalypse. Your snowflake would simply panic. He needs to believe.
Whether Earth is or is not warming is fairly irrelevant to the panic.
We all know that.
Panic satisfies an appetite.
Rush may have disputed warming; I dunno, cause I never listened. Attacking any idea because of the man is ad hominem, either way. If you want to go all ad hominem, I know that the founder of the Weather Channel disputes it. Look him up, if his testimony has not been scrubbed off YouTube. I believe the founder of Greenpeace said likewise. I recall hearing I think it was him on Joe Rogan, back before Joe moved to Spotify. Years ago, when the whole mania first started, some thousands of scientists signed a petition disputing it, didn't they? I dunno all their names. Prolly not notorious enough to work as ad hominem anything. I suspect their first name is not likely to be "Grant", though. They claimed to have fifteen times more PhDs in the specialty among them than those who signed the IPCC report.
Or you could just ask AOC: "Hey, barkeep, bring me a mimosa and apocalypse, please." There's ad womaninem.
People like to sing out just the half the argument they think they can win and ignore the rest. That's how you get headlines about "people who don't believe in global warming".
^^ good points @webmost . My inclusion of Rush, who I did listen to, wasn't ad hominem attack but rather pointing to the very shibboleth you're talking about. People totally denied even the remote possibility of global warming, because Rush said so. It's only ad hominem if I'm trying to say "that must be bunk because that's what Rush believed". I'm not saying anything like that.
It is the exaggeration, the sky-is-falling attitude, not in reference to Shawn's comment but rather the politicization by both sides that gets me.
For instance, I don't appreciate being lectured by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Jane Fonda, or Al Gore about my need to conserve. If I ran every internal combustion engine I own 24/7, and changed my thermostat 46 times a day I couldn't come close to filling the pinky-toe of any one of those individuals "carbon footprint".
These, and other such luminaries, seem to never mention the fact that when Mt. St. Helens blew her top in the 80's she released more CO2 in two weeks than all of the combined efforts of all of mankind for the previous 500 years of human activity. Also, the primary source of global warming, the Sun. Is the radiant heat from the sun a constant? What about solar flares? What about cyclic fluctuation? The alarmists never seem to want to mention any of that.
I also resent the other side, who deny basic measurable science, just because NP, AOC et al are using the issue to try to manipulate public opinion and gain power through fear. Yes, they're doing all that, but that doesn't mean the thermometer is wrong.
Still, global warming exists, and we are part of it. That being the case, it would be nice to think that we're reasonably doing whatever it is that we can do to help slow it. I'll readily admit that there may be nothing we can do, but we could try.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
That's an interesting factoid which I've not heard before.
from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/?sh=483e20d15cbf
Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year. Yes, there are uncertainties; yes, there's annual variation; yes, it's easy to get led astray if you think that Mt. Etna is typical, rather than the unusually large emitter of CO2 that it is. When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere can be determined from both ice core measurements, which easily go back hundreds of thousands of years, and by atmospheric monitoring stations, like those atop Mauna Loa. The increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1700s is staggering.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere can be determined from both ice core... [+] CIRES & NOAA
In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.
Dueling factoids.
I will admit that mine came from watching a TV show, some documentary about carbon dioxide emissions. I did not fact-check, but accepted that what was being told had been fact-checked by the producers of the show. It struck me as staggering. This has been some years back.
I watch a LOT of National Geographic documentaries and related shows. Can't say for sure. I remember them stressing the 500 years, plus showing lots of footage of Industrial Revolution smoke stacks, etc.
I'm curious, is that 29 billion tons a year the current amount? Or, is that an average over some other period of time?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Moot soot.
Have to remember. The Earth has been changing, since the, well, beginning of time. Has been been part if the effect? I have no doubt, but scientists say that each volcanic eruption has more of an effect than man ever could.
I didn't hit the disagree button on you, but I don't know brother. Edward's article from Forbes sort of quantifies it for me. They measured that shít.
Oh, come on. Nobody measures that schidt, Frank. What they do, they pull out their pocket calcs and start making hypotheses. You know that. That's how they come up with so vastly different numbers, is cause hypotheses differ, probably in proportion to where modelers seek grants.
Nobody captured all the CO2 from Mt St. Helens and put it on a scale.
Nobody captured all the CO2 from everybody's hearth fires over the last 500 years and weighed it out.
Estimates are not measurements. Assumptions begin with an a and two esses.
Most of all, there's important schidt they leave out. For example: say there's 8 billion ppl on the planet today. Say that, magically, the entire world could go completely solar and wind by the time there's 10 billion (yeah, right). Would your ten bil produce more or less CO2 by breathing, making solar cells, making windmills, making battery banks, erecting power lines to distribute it, and all the rest, than your eight bil make today? Never heard any pocket calc so much as touch the subject. But that's the crux, innit? If we were but a scant two billion sinners offending Gaia, would anybody have to worry whether polar bears go extinct?
Or how about this: Will we run out of rare earths to make electric schidt faster than we are running out of oil?
Back when the commons were enclosed so that a ruling class could make a fortune off their sooty factories ... guess what? Them Luddites were right! Industry did mean the end of the world as they knew it. There's plenty who still regret industry wasn't stopped in time. Proved unstoppable. So we adapted. Here we are. Been a wild ride.
Long as the guys in lab coats are willing to speculate, let's put their pocket calcs to work on good news: If polar caps melt, will we enjoy enough new arable land in Canada and Siberia to feed an additional 2 billion sinners? Can Roughrider fans plant two crops a year in Saskatchewan, eh? Will the Sahara continue to green? Every time I get on the phone with someone who lives in Florida, I have to listen to them brag how warm the weather is. May I at least look forward to not having to listen to Floridians brag all Winter?
Nothing stays the same. Shove panic where it belongs and look ahead.
C O toot
Is in dispute
Moot soot
What a hoot
Okay, I'm gonna wrap a couple Cholitas right now. They've been setting overnight in a mold I scored by mail off a farmer in Slovenia who made them for egg money. Cholitas are Peruvian seco scored from Whole Leaf Tobacco in Akron OH. Peru puros, is what they are. Headless shorties. Except for Indonesian wrapper which I scored off FX Smith. Recently saw pics of sculptured stones showing ancient Peruvians smoking pipes. Our foremothers knew what they were doing refining new strains of smelly leaves, cause it sure smells intoxicating, I can tell you that. Now, we may daydream that the Inca who grew that seco marched her loaded vicuna to market, and that the Dayak who grew that wrapper trundled a load thru the jungle on her head. But this wunnerful baccy, much less the mold, sure didn't get into my hands via Akron and McSherrystown and USPS without oil. I guarantee.
CO2 at work. Love it.
>
Well duh. Nobody saw the earth or the planets going around the sun, either. Nobody had a stopwatch on the earth's travel around the sun, but humanity figured out exactly how long it took...with measurements, not with the hubble and a stopwatch.
My problem with this statement is that everyone is trying to put a political spin on scientific research. In my 45 trips around the Sun, have experienced that most, if not all of the time, this is done to argue the political point, not the scientific one. Worse yet, most of the time it's not even to argue the risks or benefits of an innovation like windmills. It's more because personalities that we don't like, like AOC, is for them, and political opponents of these people argue the science instead of arguing the person.
Sorry brother, I like reading your stuff, but you're no environmental scientist. I'll trust my doctor with doctor shït And I'll trust an environmental scientist with environmental stuff. No offense.
And, this is how the argument is spun. This statement is nothing but pure rhetoric. If we start to fix one problem, we will encounter another one, so why fix the first one? If our ancestors followed this model, we'd still be trying to create fire and roll heavy crap down the trail using logs.
Funny how some here can speculate exactly how many votes were cast illegally with zero measurement and zero evidence and nothing but conjecture that was based on guys with pocket calculators, but when it comes to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and whether or not that CO2 is causing a global warming situation, it's all bullshít.
Well of course it's all based on the almighty dollar! Of course wealth is The driver of all innovation! That concept is only about 10,000 years old...
This portion is just step two of the rhetorical process. Step one was why should I fix it when there will be new problems I'll have to solve? Step two is why should I fix it when my problems actually turn into other benefits?
Since we can't argue the facts, we'll just argue the conjecture because the scientists don't.
I don't know about you brother, but I don't want to live in Canada...
We will all be driving electric cars in 50 years, not because we ran out of oil, but because they'll be cheaper and better than The ones with combustion engines.
Love it! I'll never smoke a battery powered cigar...
Unsure what there is to disagree with or flag in this post. @webmost is mostly right here, except I think that the side that 'dismisses' global warming think that everyone who wants to do something about global warming believes that there's an apocalypse surrounding it.
Clearly, @ShawnOL doesn't think much will change in his lifetime, so there's nothing to worry about now. Fair enough. I also think that there's no impending earth doom in my lifetime, either. However, I do think that man should actively try to slow it down because I think that there is a point of no return.
But, if you don't, then you don't. However, keep in mind that it's coming eithe3r way--so let's get past the denial stage and move on to acceptance.
That oughta do it.
Don't worry. Be happy.
Put a jacket on.
... what the rover is for
Just say no.
The obvious answer: STFU
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
G.O.D.
The geographic ordinance department?