Global warming - fact or conspiracy?

I moved down to Missouri from Minnesota.You all don't know from winter.

Gotta love the classic argument: "climate is complex; therefore, we shouldn't presume that our actions will have any effect whatsoever, so fuck considering the consequences."Well, brains are complex, too. And a slight change to the physiology of the brain might very well do nothing at all, or cause someone to forget their piano lessons. On the other hand? A bullet through the forhead has basically one very simple consequence.

Because the amount of heating can't be explained by the amount the output of the sun has risen.It's really pretty simple. If you're sitting in your house, and the temperature starts to rise, there's two explanations, really - someone turned up the thermostat, or your house is on fire.Now, certainly one of those things is a minor annoyance that is easily solved and nothing to worry about; the other is going to require vast, expensive alterations to your lifestyle. Trust me, I know about the costs of having your home burn down. So, naturally, we're going to suspect that it's nothing more than the thermostat being set a bit too high.But if the temperature in your house has risen 300 degrees, that is to say, much more than your furnace is capable of heating the house, it's time to realize that your house is on fire and you need to get out - that there's literally nothing more important right now than dealing with the fact that your house is on fire.The temperature rise of the Earth can't be explained soley by the rising output of the sun, because the temperature rise has exceeded the change in output. Both the warming sun and anthrogenic climate change are to blame for global warming. You've got a pretty simplistic view of "environment." Just promoting plant growth isn't a good thing. For instance, when they dump a bunch of fertilizer into a lake, you get a lot of plant growth - an algae bloom. The result for that environment?All the fish die. Environments are much, much more complex than you seem prepared to admit. Possibly, but along the way it drastically elevates concentrations of atmospheric methane and tropospheric ozone.

So, truth is the same as lies? Those who advance the truth are just as biased as those who promote lies?You need to stop watching Fox News. "Balance" is not something to strive for; accuracy is. You don't balance the truth with lies. You don't need to present "both sides" when one side is truth and the other side is fiction. Do you know what a grant is?It's not "here's a big sack of cash money; don't spend it all at once place."Spending that money is a lot of work. A lot of headache. A whole lot of people are always looking over your shoulder and counting the receipts. You don't even usually get paid out of your grant.The idea that a scientist would fudge the data, or lie, just to get some grant money is ridiculous on its face. They don't get to spend it on cars and jewelry. Getting a grant isn't getting a blank check; it's more like when the boss sends you down to pick up lunch for everybody. You don't get to get the lunch you want; you have to pick up the lunch that you think everybody else would like and that isn't going to cost a whole lot. At best, if you do it right, nobody cares. At worst if you get the wrong lunch everybody's pissed. It's thankless. Grant money's just about the same.On the other hand...The profits you get from being an oil shareholder are free money. You can do whatever you want! Go to Paris? Sure. Plasma-screen TV? Get two! Coke and hooker parties? Print up the invitations.Now, you tell me where the profit motive lies? Now, this I think you're right about. There's just far too many people who won't be convinced no matter what evidence.Honestly? I think we'd be much more successful trying to prepare for the consequences of runaway climate instead of trying to stop it. Probably too late, at this point.

Come the fuck on!ComeTheFuckOn!Come the fuck on!

quote:

---

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

​

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

​

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

---

Just a moment...Come the fuck on!Edited by AdminJar, : fix size of images