why does mother nature hate the earth so much?

[The HACKER 10+ year member]

ummm...car audio anyone??

I burned up a 8" sub the other day and smoke went into the air...did i cause a climate shift??

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Don't worry about responding; I, too, would be embarrassed if I'd been spouting such nonsense.

 

[Jaredturp 10+ year member]

Once again, you're just making things up. Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Do you follow any climate science journals?
For example, look up the IPCC FAQ about what causes climate change. In it, they specifically state: "The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide."

Or look at several papers intending to correlate water vapour with global average temperatures. Earlier this year, Science posted a paper from Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where it is argued that 1/3 of the warming trend in the 90's can be explained by positive feedback from water vapour.

Thanks for mentioning the IPCC report. The reality is that scientists are no longer questioning WHETHER or not we are changing the climate, but instead are now trying to exactly determine HOW MUCH.

It's easy to think that we are doing nothing isn't it???

I'm not some hippy-*** liberal ranting, I'm a conservative born and raised, but I have taken quite a few classes on climate and climate change specifically and the conclusion that I draw (and most scientists) would agree is that we are changing the earth, and we are doing so dramatically. Not on the scale of ten years will mean the end of the earth, but that we will see some large repercussions in the next 100. There are a lot of things that we do that are changing the earth and the climate.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Part of the problem you've drawn attention to is that of how one's politics influence the way we assess information. I'm a classical liberal/libertarian, and the last thing I want is government intervention in private industry.

But that doesn't mean that the people, as a whole, shouldn't be considering the implications in their day to day lives. I'll follow the science wherever it leads me. If that means I have to make changes in my personal lifestyle, then I have to bite that bullet (and I already have to a certain degree). If that means that we can carry on with business as usual, then that's what I do.

If you look at the bulk of the arguments made against a human impact on climate, you find that there is little-to-no scientific validity, or logical fallacies abound. That's how you can tell whether someone is coming at the issue from an ideology or from an unbiased position: stick to the science.

 

[Korn4Life 5,000+ posts]

cant **** the willing

 

[Korn4Life 5,000+ posts]

No. But if for some ungodly way someone blows a funky pup up then the world would end instantly! fyi

 

[Jaredturp 10+ year member]

cant **** the willing

I do it anyways. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Don't worry about responding; I, too, would be embarrassed if I'd been spouting such nonsense.

You're too smart to not think to conclusion. I don't here anyone proposing to eliminate water vapor from the atmosphere, even though its the main contributor. Eliminating carbon would make a minimal difference, yet we should create large taxes for it anyway.

If sun activity is included, human based carbon is an even less significant contributor. Not to mention the fact that limiting our carbon with huge taxes will eventually lead to a fight with china over theirs. So we'd either have to implement a global carbon tax, or destroy china. Then to make an actual difference, blow out 7 percent of the sun and somehow control the entire planets humidity. Arrogant fvck.

On a side note, any oil company that destroys a coastline should be fined out of existence.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You are right about China, and India, and Malaysia, etc. The more we tax our industry in this country to fight fossil fuel pollution, the more costly we make our products. The more costly we make our products, the wider the price gap between our's and China's. The wider the price gap, the fewer American made goods are sold. The fewer American made goods are sold, the fewer are made here. The fewer are made here, the less impact our restrictive laws have on actual world emissions, while driving our economy into the dirt. Its a self-defeating system that takes us down with it.

Unless pollution laws are made, and followed, on a global level, all we are doing to ourselves is making our businesses less and less able to compete in the world economy, and sending our money and jobs to China and India and other countries who aren't nearly so strict on their pollution laws.

 

[Jaredturp 10+ year member]

You're too smart to not think to conclusion. I don't here anyone proposing to eliminate water vapor from the atmosphere, even though its the main contributor. Eliminating carbon would make a minimal difference, yet we should create large taxes for it anyway.If sun activity is included, human based carbon is an even less significant contributor. Not to mention the fact that limiting our carbon with huge taxes will eventually lead to a fight with china over theirs. So we'd either have to implement a global carbon tax, or destroy china. Then to make an actual difference, blow out 7 percent of the sun and somehow control the entire planets humidity. Arrogant fvck.

On a side note, any oil company that destroys a coastline should be fined out of existence.

I don't "here" what point you are trying to make here. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

I don't "here" what point you are trying to make here. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Huh. I probably misspelled it worse than that, then my auto spell guessed wrong. My credibility has now been destroyed.