The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Tradesonred [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Theres a consensus on the climate crisis, im just getting around to this 6th exctinction stuff. But its clear were gonna hit an ecological wall soon. Thats the most terrifying thing i read in a while, that for things to go really bad, all we need to do is just keep doing what weve been doing. Its fucking 55 in El Salvador when it get really hot (131 F). Imagine adding 5 degrees C on top of that. These places will be unlivable pretty much and people are gonna try to go north were its still liveable. Guess what will happen then? Western world opening their arms to massive, historical proportion immigration from the south amirite.

hi there. you seem to be insane. please dont hurt anyone irl. Ok?

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Slathar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who cares about this? Not me. I will be dead and gone before I have to reap any consequences.

And this.

[SamwiseRed]

the earth is an idiot.

[vageta31]

People that are skeptical of climate science have every reason to be. The science behind it is so full of holes that you'd frankly be an idiot if you didn't at least question it(not to mention the political motives behind it). Global warming/climate change is all based around a computer model that has already been proven wrong on many occasions and doesn't match up to their predictions. Legitimate scientists would adjust their model to conform to the new data to make the model more accurate. Climate scientists insist their model is correct and the data is somehow wrong(even though they've been using that data for their entire model from the start). "Well this data is correct because it matches our theories, but that data taken from the same source isn't because it contradicts us. Therefore that data is wrong." That isn't science.

I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that humans may have "some" affect on the climate, you'd be hard pressed however to find any actual data that could explain the extent. Proposing draconian policies to stop human's affect on the climate, when we can't even quantify it, is ludicrous. The earth's climate has been drastically changing over the last 4.5 billion years, meaning long before humans were here, and also meaning while humans have been here. How much of what we are seeing in the climate right now is due to natural changes and how much is directly because of us? We don't know. Period. Climate science is still in it's infancy, at least "real" science and not pseudo-science and hockey stick charts meant to scare the easily persuaded.

What should make people the most skeptical is who is pushing this entire scenario. Goverments want to centralize more and more power. With pesky things like the bill of rights and the constitution(in America at least) they can't completely take over our lives. However, if they can convince the populace that the world is coming to an end if we "DON'T ACT NOW" then they can conveniently control every facet of our lives due to saving the planet. From the cars we drive, to the housing we can live in, to the food we eat, water we drink, amount of children, etc.. all the while why they fly private jets, feast on extravagant meals and tell us what we can't do. The hypocrisy is mind numbing. Al Gore flies on private jets and burns more electricity in his mansion in a single month than the average American does in an entire year yet has the gall to lecture us about riding bicycles to work instead of driving. I truly question the type of individual that can fall behind this sort of drivel.

This isn't about conspiracies, it's reality. There is no "consensus", at least not with intellectually honest scientists. There is a reason the "deniers" aren't invited to climate conventions and their requests for debate are never answered. It's easier to ignore and pretend than it is to argue against actual facts.


Also, just a thought for discussion. What if the climate was actually on a cooling trend, but aggregate global warming was keeping it from happening? Then strict regulations are put in place, AGW comes to a screeching halt and the world continues to cool eventually culminating into another mini(of full on) ice age? Which do you think we'd survive better in?

[Tradesonred]

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Noam Chomsky on climate science deniers:

Noam Chomsky - How Climate Change Became a Liberal Hoax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdi_pjrX4w

[Uthgaard]

Mass extinctions happen on a cyclical basis. As does climate change. Are we influencing it? Yep. Is it inevitable anyway? Yep. You learn about all of the factors and history in basic ecology & geology.

[vageta31]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...sensus-claims/

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming."

Hence my quote from above, written before your response;

"I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that humans may have "some" affect on the climate, you'd be hard pressed however to find any actual data that could explain the extent."




http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ne-too-far.htm

James Lovelock admitted on MSNBC in April that he had overstated the case for man-made global warming and conceded that "we don't know what the climate is doing."

The 92-year-old Lovelock said: "We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."

Lovelock explained that "the world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time" for the warming to occur. Yet the temperature "has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising" as carbon dioxide was rising.

[Tradesonred]

Originally Posted by Uthgaard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mass extinctions happen on a cyclical basis. As does climate change. Are we influencing it? Yep. Is it inevitable anyway? Yep. You learn about all of the factors and history in basic ecology & geology.

Right but to make an analogy

"Oh forest fires occur naturally, so who cares if i throw my cigarettes butts all over the place when i go camping?"

[vageta31]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...lobal-warming/

But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

[Tradesonred]

Yeah some business papers telling us that this energy transition thing would hurt their bottom line, breaking news at 11