So that's it for the election.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses. Not to mention minimal changes cause more ice to melt, and less snow to fall in the polar regions the effect adds up exponentially over the years. Do some research unless you only want to look at the very very short term effects of an exponential curve.

Considering that's precisely what I said, I'd say you're embarrassing yourself in RnF again . . .

[Lucky]

global warming doesnt exist, just left-wing retardism since liberalism is a mental disorder.

you cant take these people seriously. they want to overtax an already suffocating economy to give to people who don't deserve it all while the country is already bankrupt.

[Lucky]

I'm talking about carbon taxes, that'll be $4.20 everytime u wanna fart

[Hasbinlulz]

First of all, here is a more recent (recency isn't important tho right? What could we have learned in only five years?? lol) study published in Nature (one source you cite) entitled "At Least Three Quarters Of Climate Change Is Man Made."
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-...an-made-1.9538

Secondly, when you do a simple google search on Richard S. Lindzen (a generally well respected professor at MIT), after the wikipedia about him and his own page, the third result is literally titled: "Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?" Yes it is an opinion piece, but it is indicative of the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists, from the little I've studied about it. He is basically the most credible scientist of the "opposition" to the idea that recent global climate changes have humans to blame. That being said, the ratio of scientists who agree with him, as this article cites, is 97 against, 3 for:
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html.

Fuck off with your bullshit, "doc."

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinlulz]

somehow the other link (from which the second link above is referenced) didn't come through: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/...r_just_deluded

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, like that article says, do a ctrl+F on this document and tell me how many times "wall street," "economics," and "energy" come up, and tell me if that tells you something or not.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html

[Hasbinlulz]

Fucking noobs should know better by now.

[Hasbinlulz]

Good point about global warming distracting people from other issues tho. That is true, and should be addressed. A lot of things currently threaten -the entire world- that aren't being talked about (rain forest bioDiversity and the chitridomycosis/amphibian situation, mainly).

[Lucky]

who gives a fuk about the animals unless theyre in the ovens

[pasi]

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

How come every time I try and get someone who doesn't think mankinds shit stinks to explain why they tell me "it's complex bro, go look it up lol" ?

But then whenever I ask some environmentalist hippie to explain why shit is wrong, they are able to easily cite a laundry list of facts and studies that support what they are saying?

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man.

Originally Posted by Splorf22

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

There are many fields like this where it is beneficial to connect the dots before something is scientifically proven. As you mentioned - this is not a case where we can run traditional controlled experiments on. In fact, very few fields are so raw that we have the mathematical capabilities to create an isolated model. Other fields must rely on a steady accumulation of results that support a hypothesis. HBB mentioned you're in medicine, I believe?

I think you can draw a parallel to drug development (and medicine in general) here in the sense that we are observing the effect on a system with more variables than we know how to properly model in vivo. We are also acting against a clock that does not always allow us to wait. The idea is weighing the pros of acting now versus the cons of acting without complete knowledge. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter. I think people underestimate the effects a 1-3 degree difference has on the environment. Even in this thread, you had some idiot try to prove his point by saying that Venus is only 8x hotter than the Earth.

Then again, this isn't my field so grain of salt and all.