Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 766
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Meh. I'm still hoping I can get you to do two things: 1. consider how ridiculous the proposition that "20% of all greenhouse emissions on Earth come from cows belching and farting" is. 2. As

Any appeal to peer-reviewed climate science papers is now immediately suspect. We all know the closed circle of AGW advocates was approving each other's papers and black-balling dissent. Here

Kabana, Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be. More importantly, as pointed out

Posted Images

I skipped through here and read that last post, and thought $$$ was preparing to tell a joke - I was waiting for the punchline, until I realised he was just quoting the article.

That is incredibly sad.

ha ha, I'll try to think up a joke

seriously though, when I was a kid in say 1981, I was told, acid rain would destroy all the world's forests, that water levels would be several metres higher, that smog would kill millions and we'd need air masks, mass starvations, mineral oil and gas shortages, blah blah blah, and all this by the year 2000 when jesus was coming back on a ufo to celebrate the victory of the ussr over capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The author of The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has written an interesting column for the Washington Post. Dr. Lomborg claims that global warming is largely anthropogenic, which is in contrast to the theory of Henrik Svensmark that argues that global warming is largely driven by the sun. Nevertheless, the Danish scientist still has some interesting things to say.

For instance, he comments on how global warming might actually save lives:

As sea levels rise, so will temperatures. It seems logical to expect more heat waves and therefore more deaths. But though this fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce the number of cold spells. This is important because research shows that the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change's health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.

He also discusses the inefficacy over claims about the Kyoto Protocol helping to prevent deaths from malaria, save polar bears and the like. As a alternative, he suggests more direct and cheaper methods to accomplish these goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of those environmentalists who speak out what's it all about (not sure if this was posted already, it's from 2006) :

Earth is too crowded for Utopia

Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4584572.stm?lsm

"With that number and a timescale as targets, a path to reach "Utopia" from where we are now is, in principle, a straightforward matter of identifying options, choosing the approach and then planning and navigating the route from source to destination."

Yeah, take an axe and start chopping ... people. It's for the greater good! (sorry, that's the image that came to my mind :) )

:huh:

"As found in China, practicability and acceptability can be particularly elusive."

Yes, acceptability is a problem when you demand forced sterilizations and abortions... :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Not sure if this has been mentioned before...

Environuts don't want humans to interfere with the environment. For the last 20+ years, billions of dollars have been spent studying the earth's environment and how it works in an effort to prove we are interfering.

This works against the environuts' desires. We now understand the Earth's environment much better. So much better that we probably have enough knowledge to actually change the Earth's environment.

While there certainly isn't any political or social will right now to start changing the planet's environment to suit human needs, the fact is we are gathering so much information that at some point soon we will have to ability to alter weather patterns, shrink deserts, increase fresh water, etc, and not adversely affect other areas of the planet. At some point in the future, people are going to think maybe it would be better to alter the climate.

One other thought. People have mentioned to me there seems to be some growing acceptance by religious leaders in theories of evolution,big bang and the age of the earth, while still keeping god in the picture. Besides an increase in the percentage of "non-religious" people in the West , fed up with dogma that clearly flies in the face of knowledge , who are no longer sending MONEY to their previous religious organizations, I was thinking there would be another reason for more acceptance of science by religious institutions. That reason is global warming.

All religions love piety, and global warming is a lovely pious doctrine. However, if religious leaders start promoting man made global warming, they can't very well deny other areas of science. So don't be surprised when you start hearing religious people say they believe in evolution, the big bang and especially, man made global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this has been mentioned before...

Environuts don't want humans to interfere with the environment. For the last 20+ years, billions of dollars have been spent studying the earth's environment and how it works in an effort to prove we are interfering.

Interfere means to interact. When a batter hits a baseball he interferes with its flight. The only way for us NOT to interfere (i.e. interact) with the rest of the world is not to exist at all. Which gets is to the nubbins of the ecophreak agenda. They want the human race to be gone. To be disappeared.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interfere means to interact. When a batter hits a baseball he interferes with its flight. The only way for us NOT to interfere (i.e. interact) with the rest of the world is not to exist at all. Which gets is to the nubbins of the ecophreak agenda. They want the human race to be gone. To be disappeared.

Bob Kolker

For sure. Even casting a shadow on a patch of grass interferes. The very "waste" of material used in creating a human must disturb some of them at night.

In the future though, being an environmentalist won't be about stopping mankind form interfering, but about how to best interfere to achieve desired results. Environmental engineers. It is coming, thanks to all the knowledge we are currently gathering due to pressure from environmentalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The past week and a half we've been having lows of 3 degrees Celsius (if you want Fahrenheit do the math), which is perfectly normal weather for Mexico City... in winter. By the calendar it's still 5 weeks or so until winter.

So, if I'd knwon Global Warming™ would be so cold, I might have switched to compact fluorescents :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Humanity is the greatest challenge," says Colorado environmental activist John Feeney

We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Humanity is the greatest challenge," says Colorado environmental activist John Feeney

We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.

Is that on his suicide note?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You bring up a good point. I've often wondered why these guys don't end their abuse of Mother Earth by cutting short their own existence.

Because their first and most important duty is to make sure we stop first. The job ain't done if they just take themselves out, they gotta take us out too.

Worthless pukes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Woman Aborts Child To Help 'Save' the Planet...hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum..."Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,"

I was watching the Planet Earth series...the last three episodes are about "the future" which is of course, bad because of humans...I heard comments similar to:

a scientist saying, it's not that we have to stop scientific progress, we must roll back scientific progress

a few others stating their "expert" opinion that the human race should be limited to .5 to 1 billion people

a couple of EVIL corporate dressed types with real short hair (compared to the longer haired scientists and environmentalists) explaining how drilling for oil in Alaska would have a minial impact, as scenes of caribou (or whatever those things are) and their babies walk around an existing oil plant (more than likely they prefer the safety of the plant)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Woman Aborts Child To Help 'Save' the Planet...hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum..."Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,"

Is this an actual quote from a news story, or was it something you heard on the Planet Earth series?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this an actual quote from a news story, or was it something you heard on the Planet Earth series?

it was a separate news story, not on planet earth. I mean, the story took place on this planet earth, but not the on the show...

What a terrible reason not to have children, especially if you actually want some. Notice though that she did reach the logical conclusion of reducing a "carbon footprint" however. No humans.

I wonder how long until we have suicide enviro bombers taking out as much carbon violators (humans) that they can.

Watching Planet Earth again today, one scientist explains how it was whale songs that helped push the conservation movement. The beautiful songs that whales sing is what we are trying to save you know. Tell your children they must live in poverty so whales can sing songs beyond human comprehension.

Another scene, a conservationist all happy they have kicked tribes out of elephant territory, sitting in his jeep with his son watching the elephants walk by with stupid looks of awe in their faces. Now you must understand, they have to sacrifice their lives and travel in that territory (in a jeep) and have the terrible burden of seeing elephants everyday. Their own virtual private play ground to go see elephants whenever they want it seems, but not other people. Same story of a guy who swam with the whales. Lucky him. He thinks it's amazing, better save the whales so HE can swim with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an illustration of the importance of getting the "models" right when predicting climate change.

Imagine that you studied of some part of the ocean and found that it had cooled since the year 2000. Suppose you found that this cooling was bringing water from lower depths up to the surface, and making the surface water more nutrient-rich. Suppose you also found that this was causing increases in fish population. To review, you found: cooler ocean, and more fish.

Using the "right" model, you could take those inputs and conclude: "Global Warming puts fish stocks at risk".

Of course it is possible, if the model is true.

(HT: Climate Audit)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
Woman Aborts Child To Help 'Save' the Planet...hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum..."Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,"

I was watching the Planet Earth series...the last three episodes are about "the future" which is of course, bad because of humans...I heard comments similar to:

a scientist saying, it's not that we have to stop scientific progress, we must roll back scientific progress

a few others stating their "expert" opinion that the human race should be limited to .5 to 1 billion people

a couple of EVIL corporate dressed types with real short hair (compared to the longer haired scientists and environmentalists) explaining how drilling for oil in Alaska would have a minial impact, as scenes of caribou (or whatever those things are) and their babies walk around an existing oil plant (more than likely they prefer the safety of the plant)

Maybe that child would have invented a new energy source that can power the globe and produce less emissions. Now we'll never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how long until we have suicide enviro bombers taking out as much carbon violators (humans) that they can.

Given that there are biologists and other scientists still in respectable positions who have openly said it would be a good thing if all or most of the human population were eliminated, that is no fanciful question. From the UK Channel 4 TV special called Against Nature:

History shows us is that whenever people begin to treat animals like human beings, it's only a smell step away from treating human beings like animals. And that seems to me the logical outcome of this nostalgic, sentimental approach towards animal rights.

Culling animals for the greater good is common. Who knows when culling of people for the same reasons will start, but again it is a reasonable question to ask.

FWIW, while I don't agree with the reasoning, the consideration of euthanasia as the thin end of the wedge to that end is the motivation for some anti-euthanasia activists.

Watching Planet Earth again today, one scientist explains how it was whale songs that helped push the conservation movement. The beautiful songs that whales sing is what we are trying to save you know. Tell your children they must live in poverty so whales can sing songs beyond human comprehension.

That same program also rightly decried the museum-piece attitude towards preservation of species and primitive cultures, pointing out how environmentalism was really about rich westerners gushing over photogenic scenes while real people in these areas lived in poverty that they were effectively barred from climbing out of.

JJM

Edited by John McVey
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the last climate change report. Of course it's been a while since I've dug up any of this material, but even in 2001, it seemed like no one had actually read the IPCC report. Amazing what passes for "science" and "truth in journalism", isn't it?

<a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/" target="_blank">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/</a>

In any case, at least according this report, the conclusion was, and I quote:

In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions. (bold emphasis added by me)

Why Global Warming alarmists persist in their nonsensical ramblings is a mystery to me IF they were in fact relying almost exclusively on the IPCC report(s) AND they were really concerned for the environment. IF...that's a big IF.

Edited by prosperity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...