The_Man
Footballguy
I am having flashbacks to Pee Wee Herman....."I know you are, but what am I." Awesome points as always.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
Wow...if we're calling bull####, I could smell those three bolded sentences you typed before I even got off the main FFA page and into this thread!Oh bull####.On #1, just trying to fit in...not talk over anyone who doesn't speak anything but 'monkey.'1. Somehow you still managed to fling poo at conservatives, bravo.Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
2. While we're at it, what's your solution?
On #2? How about living within our means, for starters. Consuming less...everything. Not buying or having/consuming more _________ then we need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need, causing us to need more money than we would otherwise need, causing us to work more hours (further away from home, for many of us) than we otherwise might need, causing us to put more #### into our bodies than we need (either because we're in a hurry, or to numb the pain of our less-than-satisfying existence), causing us to need more medical care and prescriptions than we otherwise might need....are you sensing a pattern?!
I always tell people that there seems to be a direct correlation to one's income and the number of kids/animals one has. The lower one's income? The more kids...and cats/dogs/_________ running around. If everyone just had to have a net-NEUTRAL impact on our planet and economy? Problem solved. As it is? Maybe ebola or ??? will "thin the herd" a bit for us...since we obviously don't have the intelligence, willpower or empathy to do it on our own.
Hey, jon, you asked me earlier to list the ways that I separated myself from progressives. Well this is one of them. As much as I respect Datonn on most issues, this kind of thing makes me sick- he seems to have bought into the notion by extreme environmentalists that we need to curtail our lifestyles as the only means to solve these problems.
It's crap. What we need is to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels. That's it. There is no need to limit consumption. There is no need to be concerned about population growth. We have barely tapped into the earth's resources yet. These people seem to hate our way of life, and they are using this issue, which is very real IMO, as a means to destroy it.
Tim: do you SERIOUSLY believe what you wrote? I have a hard time believing any educated/intelligent individual who isn't fishing and/or drunk on Kool-aid can. Granted, we can do a TON more to find alternate forms of energy. Work to find better methods for purifying or desalinating water. Genetically engineer crops to generate higher yields from fewer plants/acres. Etc. But what is interesting is how reactive we tend to be with these things. How much pain and suffering might be avoided from just a bit of foresight. How much more expensive it is, long-term, to react vs. being proactive. "If it's not broke (now), why fix it?!" A sentiment that echoes throughout discussions in the FFA such as this one. The problem, however, is who gets to decide when something is broke? Or even better, maybe come up with solutions that help us avoid or lessen the financial or environmental blow of problems in the first place?!
Why do we need to wait until bridges are literally falling apart before we fix them (raise the funds necessary to pay for fixing them)? Why do we need to wait until the Southwest US is up #### Creek related to clean, palatable drinking water before we figure out ways to keep millions of people alive and avoiding the potential tens/hundreds of billions in economic losses that would result from the lack of said water in the region? Why do we need to wait until millions of human beings develop respiratory problems before figuring out methods to keep the air we breathe clean? Is that any way to run a nation/planet...much less your own personal checkbook?
I haven't bought into any agendas or sermons from environmentalists. I'm an individual who is a fiscal conservative and social liberal (live and let live) who is tired of watching us spend billions/trillions of dollars on problems that might have been solved/lessened/avoided for tens/hundreds of millions. I don't CARE if it saves me $10 today if it's going to cost me $100 ten years from now. Shoot...take the $10, please! Who knows if I could even afford $25 ten years down the road, much less $100. It's like driving a car that has a few little/nagging issues you know need to be fixed, but saying "#### it. I'll deal with that when my engine seizes-up or when my transmission is shot." Saves you money today...but over the long-term? You'd be a moron. Probably then howling about how your taxes are too high, and how you/we cannot afford to fix ____________. When the potential to fix the problems for pennies on the dollar early-on was available to us. Only we were too selfish/stupid to take advantage.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Datonn you brought up several issues in your response. Most of them I see eye to eye with on, I'm on my phone so I can't respond as I'd like. Maybe later.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Understanding our climate, our oceans, our atmosphere, our biosphere, and our geologic history have value far beyond the current energy problems.
Luckily it's not an either/or scenario.
Why not throw on a nickel a gallon gas tax? How about a few less tanks or nukes or obsolete bases overseas? How about a million other ways to fund something like this?
Going WAAAAAAAAAY off-topic from the primary purpose of the thread
hijack
. But being a fiscal conservative doesn't mean avoiding expenditures, lowering taxes, et al at all costs! It also doesn't mean voting pro-life, wanting (only Christian) prayer in school, and simultaneously wanting to see social service programs cut while committing trillions to military operations. Being a (true) fiscal conservative means making informed decisions as to what things might cost now vs. what things might cost later, then making the decision that will cost our country/government the least amount of "treasure" over the long-haul. Sometimes you've got to spend $100 million now, to avoid spending $500 million later (even adjusted for inflation). But that's not what the Republican Party stands for anymore. So that, coupled with their seemingly wanting to establish Theocracy in the United States (the Christian version of the governments in the Middle East that they so-greatly detest), forces me left in my politics.End of hijack. Now, let's keep flinging poo about which monkey is more the idiot when it comes to global warming and climate change...
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody? Not a single person trotting on to a Fox News set, or from Congress, or some conservative blog space, or from behind a pulpit?
Theocracy:
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
Please, PLEASE don't make me use "the Google" to locate and share links, as I've got other things to do for work tonight...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, datonn, now that I have time, let me go over your two posts and I'll tell you what I agree and disagree with:
Granted, we can do a TON more to find alternate forms of energy. Yes. Work to find better methods for purifying or desalinating water. Yes. Genetically engineer crops to generate higher yields from fewer plants/acres. Etc. Yes. But what is interesting is how reactive we tend to be with these things. How much pain and suffering might be avoided from just a bit of foresight. Yes! Agree 100% How much more expensive it is, long-term, to react vs. being proactive. "If it's not broke (now), why fix it?!" A sentiment that echoes throughout discussions in the FFA such as this one. The problem, however, is who gets to decide when something is broke? Or even better, maybe come up with solutions that help us avoid or lessen the financial or environmental blow of problems in the first place?! Yes.
Why do we need to wait until bridges are literally falling apart before we fix them (raise the funds necessary to pay for fixing them)? Agreed!! Why do we need to wait until the Southwest US is up #### Creek related to clean, palatable drinking water before we figure out ways to keep millions of people alive and avoiding the potential tens/hundreds of billions in economic losses that would result from the lack of said water in the region? Agreed, but I do think we're starting to do that. Why do we need to wait until millions of human beings develop respiratory problems before figuring out methods to keep the air we breathe clean? We have made major improvements in this area over the last 30 years- I don't think you should ignore this. Is that any way to run a nation/planet...much less your own personal checkbook? No of course not.
I I don't CARE if it saves me $10 today if it's going to cost me $100 ten years from now. Shoot...take the $10, please! Who knows if I could even afford $25 ten years down the road, much less $100. While I agree with the idea behind this statement, it's not that easy to translate into practical terms. The problem is that we're not sure if and when the savings will actually happen. Should I pay more than $10 today if it will make no difference ten years from now? In a sense, this is the same argument I have made against those who insist we have to cut spending as a means to eventually lower the debt. You'll never lower the debt enough to make any difference at all, so why bother? It's like driving a car that has a few little/nagging issues you know need to be fixed, but saying "#### it. I'll deal with that when my engine seizes-up or when my transmission is shot." Saves you money today...but over the long-term? You'd be a moron. Probably then howling about how your taxes are too high, and how you/we cannot afford to fix ____________. When the potential to fix the problems for pennies on the dollar early-on was available to us. Only we were too selfish/stupid to take advantage.It's a poor analogy because we don't know the exact nature of the automobile we're dealing with- it's on too large a scale.
I also agree with your statements about not wanting a theocracy, but I have far less fear than you that we're threatened by that. My main objection with your original argument is something that you didn't cover in your response: in your original argument, you want us to reduce consumption. I don't believe in that. In you subsequent arguments you list specific problems that we should be concerned with- and I agree we should be concerned with them, and we need to solve them, in order to PROTECT the way of life that we enjoy. We don't need to change that way of life. And finally, I can accept severe action if the outcome will likely have a positive result. But I am very wary of positive action when the outcome is unsure.
Granted, we can do a TON more to find alternate forms of energy. Yes. Work to find better methods for purifying or desalinating water. Yes. Genetically engineer crops to generate higher yields from fewer plants/acres. Etc. Yes. But what is interesting is how reactive we tend to be with these things. How much pain and suffering might be avoided from just a bit of foresight. Yes! Agree 100% How much more expensive it is, long-term, to react vs. being proactive. "If it's not broke (now), why fix it?!" A sentiment that echoes throughout discussions in the FFA such as this one. The problem, however, is who gets to decide when something is broke? Or even better, maybe come up with solutions that help us avoid or lessen the financial or environmental blow of problems in the first place?! Yes.
Why do we need to wait until bridges are literally falling apart before we fix them (raise the funds necessary to pay for fixing them)? Agreed!! Why do we need to wait until the Southwest US is up #### Creek related to clean, palatable drinking water before we figure out ways to keep millions of people alive and avoiding the potential tens/hundreds of billions in economic losses that would result from the lack of said water in the region? Agreed, but I do think we're starting to do that. Why do we need to wait until millions of human beings develop respiratory problems before figuring out methods to keep the air we breathe clean? We have made major improvements in this area over the last 30 years- I don't think you should ignore this. Is that any way to run a nation/planet...much less your own personal checkbook? No of course not.
I I don't CARE if it saves me $10 today if it's going to cost me $100 ten years from now. Shoot...take the $10, please! Who knows if I could even afford $25 ten years down the road, much less $100. While I agree with the idea behind this statement, it's not that easy to translate into practical terms. The problem is that we're not sure if and when the savings will actually happen. Should I pay more than $10 today if it will make no difference ten years from now? In a sense, this is the same argument I have made against those who insist we have to cut spending as a means to eventually lower the debt. You'll never lower the debt enough to make any difference at all, so why bother? It's like driving a car that has a few little/nagging issues you know need to be fixed, but saying "#### it. I'll deal with that when my engine seizes-up or when my transmission is shot." Saves you money today...but over the long-term? You'd be a moron. Probably then howling about how your taxes are too high, and how you/we cannot afford to fix ____________. When the potential to fix the problems for pennies on the dollar early-on was available to us. Only we were too selfish/stupid to take advantage.It's a poor analogy because we don't know the exact nature of the automobile we're dealing with- it's on too large a scale.
I also agree with your statements about not wanting a theocracy, but I have far less fear than you that we're threatened by that. My main objection with your original argument is something that you didn't cover in your response: in your original argument, you want us to reduce consumption. I don't believe in that. In you subsequent arguments you list specific problems that we should be concerned with- and I agree we should be concerned with them, and we need to solve them, in order to PROTECT the way of life that we enjoy. We don't need to change that way of life. And finally, I can accept severe action if the outcome will likely have a positive result. But I am very wary of positive action when the outcome is unsure.
Gene Sackman
Footballguy
You guys still talking about this global warming mumbo jumbo..?
Fair enough, Tim. I think about resources such as water, however. About 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by water! Yet about 1% of said water is potable. In 1950, the population of Earth was ~2.56 billion. By 1980, that population had increased to 4.55 billion. Not quite double, but that meant that the potable water available per human being was a little more than half what it was in 1950. In 2010, the population of humans on Earth was 6.85 billion. Every one person in 1950 now having to share with an additional 1.67 individuals for everything previously available to them. By 2050, the population of humans on Earth is projected to be 9.35 billion. With the amount of fresh, potable water on the planet? Probably remaining about the same (# gallons) as it was in 1950. As it was in 1850. As it was in 50 AD...or 1950 BC!
If you put 3-4 people in the same space, consuming 3-4 times the resources, that every one of us occupied/consumed in 1950?! Houston, we've got a problem. A GLOBAL problem. And while states like Minnesota or Maine have water coming out of their ears, there were states that were stretched thin (per-capita) in 1950. What if that same water now needs to keep 3-4 people alive/clean/____________ in the future? With 3-4 times more pollution occurring from the waste we as humans generate?
I'm not advocating for all of us moving out of cities and running 20-40 acre farms with bare feet and animals as tools/transportation in the future.
But if we don't take PROACTVE steps to curb the eventual FUBAR that we're facing related to clean (and potable) water, air, and land in the decades ahead, we'll be forced to REACT to said problems. At a cost of probably $3-$4+ for every $1 said proactive steps we could take now, in 2014 dollars. Does that make any long-term macroeconomic sense? Is that going to result in the smaller government (lower taxes), and/or energy independence, and/or less geo-political tension around the world that many/most of us might desire?! It boggles my mind how people cannot understand this. Bickering over whether some scientist in Antarctica was 3-5% over/under on their projections for land/water surface temperature. How it's going to be in the 50s here in Minnesota in the coming days (below average temps) ...so obviously "global warming" (should be talking climate change, but whatever) is a farce. 
Climate change is a symptom of over-population, poorly-allocated consumption of resources, and selfish consumptive decisions. We don't need to all go back to living like Ma and Pa Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie! Nor would 99.99% of us ever want to. But when are folks gonna pull their heads out of their ###es and at least try and take a baby step or two in the "right" direction?
Last edited by a moderator:
spreagle
Footballguy
How much more expensive is it, long term, to react rather than be proactive?
Sometimes it's way more expensive to be proactive. For example, last year there were tens of millions of federal dollars allocated for emergency Great Lakes dredging due to low lake levels caused by global warming. Then in the last year Great Lakes levels zoomed up a few feet so none of that dredging was really required. The money should have went for emergency erosion control rather than dredging. That's the price of being proactive, making the totally wrong decision.
Spreagle, in your example (Great Lakes dredging), I can't help but ask: Said dredging: Why did it need to occur in the first place?! AKA why are/were lake levels dropping?! Seems a better question to ask...as dredging isn't a PROACTIVE solution at all, but rather REACTING to the situation (low lake levels).spreagle said:
And because lake levels went up a couple feet in 2014, all is well? No problem down the road...we've hung our banner on some ship, saying "Mission Accomplished?!"
Because it rains a lot in the Southwest this time of year, and Lake Mead's levels maybe get a foot or two deeper, we're all good? No problem down the road?The canary's been dead in the coal mine for a while now. Only we're wasting time arguing over whether he died yesterday, last week, last month, last year. With lots 'o people suggesting he died from starvation, or old age, or ??? When we could have started doing a lot more to make things better for ALL of us (canary included) decades ago...regardless of why the canary died. If we weren't so ####ing selfish and short-sighted.
spreagle
Footballguy
Why was it needed? Global warming of course. It was proactive spending because lake levels were anticipated to drop even lower due to global warming (wrong) and the federal spending went everywhere. I assume boats weren't scraping bottom everywhere at the same time.Spreagle, in your example (Great Lakes dredging), I can't help but ask: Said dredging: Why did it need to occur in the first place?! AKA why are/were lake levels dropping?! Seems a better question to ask...as dredging isn't a PROACTIVE solution at all, but rather REACTING to the situation (low lake levels).spreagle said:
And because lake levels went up a couple feet in 2014, all is well? No problem down the road...we've hung our banner on some ship, saying "Mission Accomplished?!"
The canary's been dead in the coal mine for a while now. Only we're wasting time arguing over whether he died yesterday, last week, last month, last year. With lots 'o people suggesting he died from starvation, or old age, or ??? When we could have started doing a lot more to make things better for ALL of us (canary included) decades ago...regardless of why the canary died. If we weren't so ####ing selfish and short-sighted.
Regarding the thought that "oh well it was a good thing we dredged because water level might drop again" 1) the water levels may not drop for a long time 2) dredged areas tend to fill back in 3) now we have to find money to deal with high lake levels. You should see the erosion around here on Lake Michigan. Erosion is the opposite of dredging.
The millions of dredge money was wasted. WASTED. I wish I could figure out how much was wasted but at this time it's hard to figure out how many of these projects were started and finished. We are currently wasting hundreds of billions if not trillions on global warming. What if the opposite happens? Can the opposite happen? Sure. The opposite just happened on the Great Lakes.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Climate models consistantly ignore or underestimate sources of negative feedback which significantly reduce the impact. There is no mystery why the models always overstate the problem.
In case anyone was wondering, here's something else climate change is not responsible for:
http://thewestsidestory.net/2014/10/16/18935/composition-eastern-forests-affected-due-climatic-changes/
Isn't it funny how Timmy shows up in a thread any time someone posts something that supports his world view, but is noticeably absent when something factual is posted that might go against his world view?
http://thewestsidestory.net/2014/10/16/18935/composition-eastern-forests-affected-due-climatic-changes/
Isn't it funny how Timmy shows up in a thread any time someone posts something that supports his world view, but is noticeably absent when something factual is posted that might go against his world view?
Now we're getting to real reasons for the ban on DDT and legal abortion on demandSheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
Gene Sackman
Footballguy
Sheeple still amaze me. Does anybody actually realize that the real issue here is:
1. Pollution, and
2. Population, and
3. The continuing destruction of millions of acres of agricultural and forest land needed to feed said population, contributing to the pollution of our air, land and water
The more people we add to Planet Earth, the more pressure we place on each acre of land to provide more for said population. Couple that with the fact that more people create more waste...more pollution, and you basically create a scenario where we're basically ####ed as a planet/species down the road.
What is the total population of human beings on Earth where, once that number is exceeded, quality (and quantity) of life for all human beings decreases? I might argue that we've already passed that point...but that's just 20-30 pages of Conservatives being snarky or sharing links to pseudo-science, so let's not go down that road. Let's just focus on the point: Limited resources, being made more limited and/or spread ever-thinner (per capita) while dumb###es argue with other dumb###es over whether rainbows and unicorns exist.
Who cares?! We are on a completely unsustainable course as a species. Earth cannot take many more billion of us trying to live/work/play on less and less usable/productive land. Cannot replenish food sources necessary for our survival. Cannot provide enough clean, palatable water to keep us all alive. At least not while monkeys spend most of their time flinging poo at one another.
WAKE THE #### UP.
x 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000You got issues bro..
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
There is a chance he does...Do you understand what the word "probability" means?
The_Man
Footballguy
Please do.
NOAA won't release its report on global temps for October until next week, but various other agencies have already labeled it the warmest October on record. It's almost inevitable at this point that 2014 will go down as the hottest year on record.
Also reported earlier this week is that the world's oceans are now the warmest ever recorded, exceeding even those of the record-breaking 1998 El Nino year.
World's warmest recorded year. Oceans at their highest recorded temperature ever, even without an El Nino. 30 years without a single month where the average global temp was below the 20th Century average. It's just such a streak of amazing coincidences.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
It is part of the overall warming trend since the last ice age. Your streak of amazing coincidences would only be amazing if the temperature was expected to remain constant. But since we have 4 billion years of constantly changing environment that is a very ignorant assumption, so there is nothing amazing about something that has happened thousands of times before.
The_Man
Footballguy
How hospitable to human life was the planet back then? Because that's really my main area of focus when it comes to climate change. I have no doubt the Earth will be just fine.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
It's all part of the natural order of things. The climate has been changing for billions of years, don't you know.
There is nothing mutual exclusive about the environment changing naturally and man causing an impact to environment. They both are happening and only the nut case global warmers attempt to claim that they are not.
cstu
Footballguy
There's no question that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in air, right now at a rate of ~2 ppm/year.
I also have no question that higher CO2 levels without increase global temperatures. My disagreement is with the degree of temperature increase.
In the link attacking Dr. Happer it said this:
While Happer acknowledges that correlation is not causation, he does admit that temperatures did increase by 0.8 C at the same time CO2 increased by 110 ppm.
However, let's assume that there is causation. This is where the alarmist global warming argument falls apart - if CO2 rises from the current 400 ppm to 500 ppm we should expect an increase of about 1 degree C, not the claims of 2-3 degrees C.
Mister Martie
Footballguy
Temps go up, temps go down - you can't explain that! Next you'll be trying to tell me you can explain the tides!
^ ...or why it's colder with less sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere this time of year.
Mister Martie
Footballguy
Link to anyone ever saying that there are no natural influences on the environment?
joffer
Footballguy
why? are you assuming the relationship is approximately linear?
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
when was the first time?
tommyboy
Footballguy
70's and 80's
Josie Maran
Footballguy
You must have gotten the wrong pages today, these are usually Max Threshold's lines. Sorry for the mixup, that new production assistant is gonna get a talking to!
It was the whole reason the global warmers created the whole hockey stick illusion. And is also the logic behind the idiotic argument made numerous times on this thread that it is somehow amazing that temperatures have been above the average temperature for the 1900's for hundreds of consecutive months. And to a lesser degree, the IPCC
My farts ooze more intelligence than anything you have ever contributed to this forum.
