Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Climate change is inevitable. It has changed in the past long before human intervention and it will change in the future no matter what we do about it. This is natural order in the works, period.

Unfortunately, environmental lobbyists and their roommates (Democrats) don't get the aforementioned fact and want to kill the American fossil fuel industry (Obama administration has nearly killed coal mining industry for example). Do these idiots understand that even if they kill the American fossil fuel industry, they cannot do jack about it in other countries? Do they even understand the implications of killing American fossil fuel industry for the economy and working classes irrespective of race? What is the alternative according to these morons? How about they abandon all forms of technology, shift to caves and experience natural environment at its finest there?

The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs.

Excellent Post, Wonderful Satire.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/40f9563f56b134b8d8a0f6aff42ddac2/tumblr_inline_nh0xj3L9R01st24e7.jpg

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs. Lmao.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs.

Of course the ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. The Russians are behind climate change. We need to go on the offensive! Russian boogeyman are destroying this planet.

They are behind every negative thing in the world bro. Did you stub your toe once as a child? Yeah, the Russians did it. I mean an electrical grid was one thing, but causing climate change? That is going too far.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs.
Right.

Ever heard about El-Nino and La-Nina? This phenomenon is millions of years old and affects biodiversity in a natural way. Some species will perish and newer ones will evolve. Like I said, this is natural order in the works.

For a layman, global warming and global cooling are natural trends and will occur regardless of fossil fuel industry in the picture or not. We cannot preserve the world in its present state. If an Ice Age is to come, it will come regardless of our activities. If a super-volcano (e.g. Yellowstone) is to erupt, it will erupt regardless of our activities. We cannot alter the course of natural order. Polar caps have melted before and will melt again.

Fossil fuel industry is the lifeline of economy of a large number of countries. This industry has changed out life-style for the better.

Prematurely killing fossil fuel industry is not wise and will eventually destroy the economy. Encourage eco-friendly Industrial revolution but not at the cost of millions of jobs and sinking the economy of the country.

U.S. is a huge country with 174 million hectares of arable land. I don't think that American fossil fuel industry is even close to threatening all of it and neither it is present in every state. In-fact, shale industry has minimum impact on the well-being of environment. Coal mining industry is not wide-spread either.

If a forest becomes a casualty of industry in one region, plant a large number of trees in another region to offset any imbalance.

Otherwise, why bother building large cities even? Why not live in caves?

In short, stop kidding yourselves and destroying the livelihood of others for the sake of a misinformed lobby that has emerged as a threat to jobs of millions of people and the economy itself. You cannot survive on energy (imports) for an indefinite period. National Debt is piling up and increasing the cost of living accordingly. It is only a matter of time until the investors feel that the Titanic is sinking; bail.

Originally posted by Surtur
Of course the ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. The Russians are behind climate change. We need to go on the offensive! Russian boogeyman are destroying this planet.

They are behind every negative thing in the world bro. Did you stub your toe once as a child? Yeah, the Russians did it. I mean an electrical grid was one thing, but causing climate change? That is going too far. Actually its a Chinese hoax... what r u smoking?

The only reason climate change is a politicized issue is because Big Oil stands to lose profits with the emergence of clean renewable energy.

And as we all know, Republicans embrace Big Oil lobbyists by accepting their campaign contributions

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Actually its a Chinese hoax... what r u smoking?

Nope, Russians tricked you into thinking it was the Chinese.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The only reason climate change is a politicized issue is because Big Oil stands to lose profits with the emergence of clean renewable energy.

And as we all know, Republicans embrace Big Oil lobbyists by accepting their campaign contributions

Greed in this country has a nasty habit of holding back progress.

Yes never mind the fact that regardless of the impacts of climate change, pollution from fossil fuels acidifies the ocean, which is where phytoplankton are, which is where 50% to 85% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from

Nah but **** our environment and our oxygen supply, let's continue to be a bunch of greedy swines and **** up this closed system we live in just so some of the richest people in the world can get richer.

Let's just cover our ears and ignore what the vast majority of scientists are telling us just so we won't feel guilty and afraid of what we're doing, just so we can feel content with our current way of life and delude ourselves into thinking we don't need to change it. And of course so we can worship our lord and savior the free market

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes never mind the fact that regardless of the impacts of climate change, pollution from fossil fuels acidifies the ocean, which is where phytoplankton are, which is where 50% to 85% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from

Nah but **** our environment and our oxygen supply, let's continue to be a bunch of greedy swines and **** up this closed system we live in just so some of the richest people in the world can get richer.

Hells yeah! I mean I doubt we'll have to suffer any major consequences in our own lifetimes, so who cares, amirite?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes never mind the fact that regardless of the impacts of climate change, pollution from fossil fuels acidifies the ocean, which is where phytoplankton are, which is where 50% to 85% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from

Nah but **** our environment and our oxygen supply, let's continue to be a bunch of greedy swines and **** up this closed system we live in just so some of the richest people in the world can get richer. Don't forget about the warming of the ocean, which not only destroys marine ecosystems but also melts the polar ice caps. And the melting ice caps release methane into the atmosphere worsening the greenhouse effect ten fold.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hells yeah! I mean I doubt we'll have to suffer any major consequences in our own lifetimes, so who cares, amirite? Your pal Trump doesn't believe in global warming, you're part of the problem. You are the problem and people like you

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, Russians tricked you into thinking it was the Chinese.No trump told me, and trump is no puppet.

Greed and stupidity, the OP being the latter.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Your pal Trump doesn't believe in global warming, you're part of the problem. You are the problem and people like you #exposehim

I'm glad you see he isn't a puppet. You're doing good, real good.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
#exposehim

Surely all one needs to do to convince Trump is to show him the 100% conclusive evidence on climate change and global warming and all that shiznit.

Once he gets in office and he gets that stuff I think he will perhaps change his tune.

I always knew you were a climate change denier.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The only reason climate change is a politicized issue is because Big Oil stands to lose profits with the emergence of clean renewable energy.

And as we all know, Republicans embrace Big Oil lobbyists by accepting their campaign contributions
Right.

Look at this:

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2015-large.jpg

Notice the percentage of petroleum in use? That is not changing anytime soon. Electric cars are a step in the right direction but they will not replace other cars in 2017.

No problem with promoting alternatives but change should come with planning; not in a haphazard way. If you will stop extracting fossil fuels, you will have to import them from other countries and this is contributing to trade deficit (exports < imports). National debt is climbing as a consequence and cost of energy is increasing. Jobs opportunities are limited and people have to struggle more to pay the bills. Rich (including politicians) are profiting while working classes continue to suffer. The economy will continue to experience periods of recession.

It is really stupid to ignore economics for the sake of appeasing a lobby. Please understand that climate change is inevitable and a part of natural order.

Our fight should be directed towards pollution. But stopping the industry and reliance on imports for domestic energy requirements is not a sustainable goal.

And it's stupider still to keep ****ing over our planet in a way that could potentially lead to the extinction of the human race becuz moneyz

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And it's stupider still to keep ****ing over our planet in a way that could potentially lead to the extinction of the human race becuz moneyz
So rollback all the advancements and our way of life?

Pollution is a problem in developing countries due to them lacking in greener techniques for extracting fossil fuels and resources for research and replacement. This is not an issue in the U.S.

If want to fight causes of pollution then focus on issues of developing countries. Don't derail your own.

By the way, extinction is inevitable just like climate change. If not through our own devices, nature will get rid of us one day through its own devices. Don't worry about it. Worry about how to manage things (correctly) at present.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Right.

Look at this:

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2015-large.jpg

Notice the percentage of petroleum in use? That is not changing anytime soon. Electric cars are a step in the right direction but they will not replace other cars in 2017.

No problem with promoting alternatives but change should come with planning; not in a haphazard way. If you will stop extracting fossil fuels, you will have to import them from other countries and this is contributing to trade deficit (exports < imports). National debt is climbing as a consequence and cost of energy is increasing. Jobs opportunities are limited and people have to struggle more to pay the bills. Rich (including politicians) are profiting while working classes continue to suffer. The economy will continue to experience periods of recession.

It is really stupid to ignore economics for the sake of appeasing a lobby. Please understand that climate change is inevitable and a part of natural order.

Our fight should be directed towards pollution. But stopping the industry and reliance on imports for domestic energy requirements is not a sustainable goal. No one is saying we should abruptly close down the fossil fuel industry, that needs to be done gradually. What we're saying needs to be done is more investment in cheaper and efficient clean energy. Development of solar technology and improvement of wind farm effectiveness. Stuff like that.

Unfortunately, republicans would rather completely reject the science of global warming and instead embolden the fossil fuel industry by lifting regulations and giving tax breaks.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Climate change is inevitable. It has changed in the past long before human intervention and it will change in the future no matter what we do about it. This is natural order in the works, period.

Unfortunately, environmental lobbyists and their roommates (Democrats) don't get the aforementioned fact and want to kill the American fossil fuel industry (Obama administration has nearly killed coal mining industry for example). Do these idiots understand that even if they kill the American fossil fuel industry, they cannot do jack about it in other countries? Do they even understand the implications of killing American fossil fuel industry for the economy and working classes irrespective of race? What is the alternative according to these morons? How about they abandon all forms of technology, shift to caves and experience natural environment at its finest there?


Bringing back coal in any massive amount like the 'good ole days' is stupid, it's a dying industry; the future lies elsewhere in new technologies that will become better and cheaper as technology progresses, something that has been steadily happening for a long time now. Fossil fuels are here to stay in some form, as not everyone is getting an electric car tomorrow, but improvements in fuel efficiency in turn lower the need for fossil fuels. eg Adding solar panels decreases the load for conventional electricity to a home. Water turbines in our water lines creates energy that can power buildings about them etc. etc. etc.

While other developing countries will pollute, they'll also see what's going on elsewhere and jump onboard in time. China for example is starting to invest heavily into cleaner energy sources because the air over their major cities is/has become a health risk.

In short, the future isn't in the past; morons like you really make the world a worst place.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The 6th mass extinction is underway, we may as well go hard now and kill as much of the diversity of life as possible. We should also finish off what we started in the rainforests--cut all of them down and replace them with strip mines and farms.


And those polar ice caps aren't going to melt themselves. They need our help so that they can raise sea levels and force hundreds of millions of people to flee diminishing coastlines. Then we can look back on the comparatively insignificant refugee crisis of the early 21st century with whimsical nostalgia.



But don't take our jawbs.

Nice

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I always knew you were a climate change denier.

Nobody denied climate change at all. I was simply attempting to use logic. Once Trump sees the irrefutable evidence it will be hard to deny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Triggered

Fixed that for you.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody denied climate change at all. I was simply attempting to use logic. Once Trump sees the irrefutable evidence it will be hard to deny.

You think Trump hasn't already seen the evidence? The fact is that he's not draining the swamp, he's buddying up with the republican establishment and that means more tax breaks for huge oil companies. Hell he made the CEO of Exxon his Secretary of State...

Trump supporters like Surtur do not give a single shit what Trump does going forward(he's expressed this); Trump could break every single campaign promise and he'd still be happy because people like him supported Trump just so they could say "haha, we won Libs, suck it!"

This is why people should have voted for Sanders.

Originally posted by Firefly218
You think Trump hasn't already seen the evidence? The fact is that he's not draining the swamp, he's buddying up with the republican establishment and that means more tax breaks for huge oil companies. Hell he made the CEO of Exxon his Secretary of State...

I can't speak with any certainty as to if Trump has seen the conclusive evidence or not. I know he is aware that a lot of scientists believe in climate change, but he also might be aware that in science a mere consensus doesn't actually make something fact.

So who knows I can't speak to what he has been shown.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump supporters like Surtur do not give a single shit what Trump does going forward(he's expressed this); Trump could break every single campaign promise and he'd still be happy because people like him supported Trump just so they could say "haha, we won Libs, suck it!"

A variety of times I have expressed I do indeed care what he does going forward.

But also..haha we won Libs, suck it! You couldn't even defeat Donald Trump,your hypocritical bullshit cost you dearly. Please learn a lesson from this, lest you suffer the same exact fate in 2020

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody denied climate change at all. I was simply attempting to use logic. Once Trump sees the irrefutable evidence it will be hard to deny. i hope a tsunami destroys your home and oil spills poison your water supply.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump supporters like Surtur do not give a single shit what Trump does going forward(he's expressed this); Trump could break every single campaign promise and he'd still be happy because people like him supported Trump just so they could say "haha, we won Libs, suck it!" #exposehim

Originally posted by Beniboybling
i hope a tsunami destroys your home and oil spills poison your water supply.

You hope thousands of people are killed, wow. did you thumbs up that facebook vid?

With all the technology available today it's a sad state that we still rely on ff. It's the neanderthal of available energy to us.

We should have been tapering off FF easily in the 90's.

Originally posted by Surtur
A variety of times I have expressed I do indeed care what he does going forward.

But also..haha we won Libs, suck it! You couldn't even defeat Donald Trump,your hypocritical bullshit cost you dearly. Please learn a lesson from this, lest you suffer the same exact fate in 2020

Nope. You generally either avoid or try and sugarcoat.

Exactly. Sadly you're too dense to realize that makes you equal parts petty and moronic.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You hope thousands of people are killed, wow. did you thumbs up that facebook vid? what vid? Does Surtur's family perish in it?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
what vid? Does Surtur's family perish in it?

A little too far there, man.

Reported.

roflmao

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So rollback all the advancements and our way of life?
Nobody's saying to immediately get rid of all fossil fuels, they're saying to regulate the fossil fuel industry to dial back some of its damage and invest more into renewable resources so those companies can actually have room and make some money in the economy and get research funding so the technology can actually develop to an extent where we can use it more effectively, all so we can gradually shift from fossil fuels to alternative renewable energy.

That seems a lot more reasonable to me than your carefree attitude of "**** it the human race is ****ed anyways so why give a shit about not killing it off sooner."

You act like democrats are ridiculous for wanting to actually do something about this shit, when I have seen nobody suggest just straight up abandoning fossil fuels all at once immediately, while I have on the other hand seen several people (including yourself) with the attitude that we should do absolutely nothing about this very serious issue.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Pollution is a problem in developing countries due to them lacking in greener techniques for extracting fossil fuels and resources for research and replacement. This is not an issue in the U.S.
Really? Cause the US has more CO2 emissions than any other country aside from China.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
If want to fight causes of pollution then focus on issues of developing countries. Don't derail your own.
If the US actually works to solve this problem internally, then we'd be reducing the emissions of the second worst country in terms of CO2 emissions would definitely have an impact.
And if we emphasize a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy in a country as developed as the US, then the technology relating to renewable energy would end up advancing and developing more.

And if that shift actually took place, then such a shift would be much more doable for the rest of the world as a whole, since:
1. The US would actually set a precedent for such a shift happening
2. The necessary technology would be much more developed
3. The US, a major world power and one of the members of the Council of Five or whatever in the UN, could actually push for changes in international law and policy to drive such a change on a Global scale while actually being a good example rather than coming across as a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
By the way, extinction is also inevitable. If not through our own devices, the natural order will get rid of us one day with its own devices. Don't worry about it. Worry about how to manage things (correctly) at present.
This is some of the most childish thinking I've ever heard. "The human race is gonna die off anyways, so let's not give a **** about trying to make it last longer or trying not to make it end even sooner than it otherwise would" is childish, lazy, and self-destructive.

That's tantamount to a person saying "Well I'm gonna die someday anyways, so I'm gonna forgo my physical health for instant gratification and eat like a pig and die of health problems before I'm forty" or "I'm gonna die one day so I'm gonna **** as many bitches as possible and get aids and die" or "I'm gonna die anyways someday and school is tedious so I'm just gonna **** around in school and not give a **** about my education and have a really shitty future when I don't have enough of an education to make a decent life for myself."

It's the same shitty, immature, lazy and childish principal demonstrated above, but it's even worse because whereas the above examples are people ****ing themselves over with their shitty short term decisions that don't take the future into consideration at all, people like you are ****ing over the rest of the planet as well, and future generations that will either be ****ed over by our shitty decisions or never get the opportunity to experience life in the first place because we ****ed the human race over prematurely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. You generally either avoid or try and sugarcoat.

Exactly. Sadly you're too dense to realize that makes you equal parts petty and moronic.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2016/10/kettle-c.gif

Originally posted by Silent Master
You hope thousands of people are killed, wow. did you thumbs up that facebook vid?

Lmao, the guy just does the work for me at this point. He trolls himself. I love the smell of intolerance from liberals in the morning.

Or in the afternoon as well. These people are walking, talking, parodies.

What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered.

So what's S_W_LeGenD's argument? He acknowledges man made climate change but thinks we shouldn't do anything about it? Or that it's nowhere near as serious as we think? What's his feelings on the matter in a nutshell?



Originally posted by Beniboybling
What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered. He's at the local range exercising his 2nd Amendment rights to stay #triggered and keep the liberal Jew media away.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So what's S_W_LeGenD's argument? He acknowledges man made climate change but thinks we shouldn't do anything about it? Or that it's nowhere near as serious as we think? What's his feelings on the matter in a nutshell?


Seems to be that since he believes humans will eventually go extinct at some point in the future, who really cares in thinking about the long term. It's all about the short term gains.

tl;dr version: He's an idiot; it's reflected in his idiotic argument

After re-reading his OP, I can't find any acknowledgement that man made climate change is a threat. I can only take that to mean that he believes it doesn't even exist, or that it's insignificant.



Which... yeah, how do you argue with someone like that? "It's a conspiracy!" "It's a hoax!" "Climate scientists are all shills!" And if he's not a conspiracy theorist, then he's willfully avoiding all data and research that shows man-made climate change exists, and is a huge threat to our civilization and the planet's biodiversity.




But don't take ma jerbs.

Originally posted by Firefly218
No one is saying we should abruptly close down the fossil fuel industry, that needs to be done gradually. What we're saying needs to be done is more investment in cheaper and efficient clean energy. Development of solar technology and improvement of wind farm effectiveness. Stuff like that.

Unfortunately, republicans would rather completely reject the science of global warming and instead embolden the fossil fuel industry by lifting regulations and giving tax breaks.
Problem is that our reliance on fossil fuel industry is not going to dial down anytime soon. However, Democrats want to shut it down in the U.S. mainland without taking economic implications into consideration. They don't understand that American economy is at stake and the superpower status along-with it.

Ever wonder why oil is cheap right now? Due to shale revolution.

Benefits of Shale revolution are multi-fold:-

1. Domestic production of oil increasing
2. New job opportunities
3. Oil imports decreasing
4. Cost of oil low
5. Reduction in trade deficit
6. Greater relief for working classes

More importantly, Shale industry is not an environmental hazard. It is much greener than the coal mining industry and it is a reasonable substitute as well. And it getting greener with newer techniques: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-for-greener-fracking/

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to shut down the Industry on the whole. Full stop. Proof here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2016/03/25/hillary-bernie-hydraulic-fracturing-and-the-future-of-us-oil-and-gas-production/#247e97fa41d9

That is the problem. Popular politicians are becoming reckless in their approach to sensitive aspects of the economy.

U.S. is experiencing trade deficit since 1970s and national debt has approached 19.5 Trillion USD mark. China (alone) owns over 1 Trillion USD of this debt. Try to understand the implications if this debt continues to climb unaccounted for indefinite period. U.S. risks becoming another Venezuela. A lot more is at stake in this matter than concerns of environmentalists.

My position is that newer Industrial developments are much greener than the past and they should be encouraged along-with the pressure of keeping them green and making them further greener whenever possible. Shutting down the Industry and relying on imports is not going to be a sustainable goal for long. In short, economic implications should be accounted for along-with concerns for environment.

And do keep in mind the fact that climate change is a component of natural order and will occur no matter what. So using climate change as the basis to terminate the industry (that not just defines our way of life but powers the entire modern societal construct) is not going to solve anything, rather create more problems for the coming generations to deal with. Possibility of civil war like conditions cannot be ruled out either. So don't push the buttons too hard. Play it safe.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And do keep in mind the fact that climate change is a component of natural order and will occur no matter what. Ok, the rest of your post notwithstanding, this part right here is probably the biggest problem.


It happens no matter what... It doesn't happen as fast as it is, to the degree that it is, without serious detrimental effects to the biosphere. We will pay for the monumental changes that we've wreaked upon the climate in our tiny slice of time as an industrialized species. That price will far exceed the scale or importance of any national debt or trade deficit, and it will stick around for a long, long time.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ok, the rest of your post notwithstanding, this part right here is probably the biggest problem.


It happens no matter what... It doesn't happen as fast as it is, to the degree that it is, without serious detrimental effects to the biosphere. We will pay for the monumental changes that we've wreaked upon the climate in our tiny slice of time as an industrialized species. That price will far exceed the scale or importance of any national debt or trade deficit, and it will stick around for a long, long time.
Environmental changes can be abrupt and/or slow. There is not hard and fast rule for them.

For example: if the yellowstone volcano becomes active and erupts soon after, what can you do about it? It will wreck the environment in a much shorter span of time and a large number of life-forms (including people) will die as a consequence.

I understand the contribution of fossil fuel industry to the global warming phenomenon but outright stopping it is sheer stupidity and not economically feasible. Business entities are paying attention and adopting greener methods for extraction. Try to stop them and environmentalists will have a lot more to worry about then just environmental factors. Try to understand the argument here.

You want all the perks of Industrial age but you want to stop the industry itself? Makes any sense to you? You want to change the world, do it wisely and in a calculative manner. You want a better life for yourself? Others want the same for themselves. Don't be a hypocrite.

Please also request Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to live in a jungle: I am sure they would. Leaders should lead by setting examples, shouldn't they?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
What's gotten into you today Surtur? You sound so... #triggered.

It's okay to just admit you have nothing else to say.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Environmental changes can be abrupt and/or slow. There is not hard and fast rule for them.

For example: if the yellowstone volcano becomes active and erupts soon after, what can you do about it? It will wreck the environment in a span of a few days and a large number of life-forms (including people) will die as a consequence.

I understand the contribution of fossil fuel industry to the global warming phenomenon but outright stopping it is sheer stupidity and not economically feasible. Business entities are paying attention and adopting greener methods for extraction. Try to stop them and environmentalists will have a lot more to worry about then just environmental factors. Try to understand the argument here.

You want all the perks of Industrial age but you want to stop the industry itself? Makes any sense to you? You want to change the world, do it wisely and in a calculative manner. You want a better life for yourself? Others want the same for themselves. Don't be a hypocrite.

Request Hillary Clinton to live in a jungle: I am sure she would. Oi vey. No sane and informed person could or would argue for less energy use, or a societal devolution back to pre-industry. That's the purview of Luddites and Tyler Durden.


When Yellowstone blows, or when an asteroid collides with Earth again, we have to either not be here, or have the technological capacity to mitigate or prevent the disaster. And doing so will require shitloads of energy. If we ever hope to move up the Kardashev scale, we need to harness more energy. Fossil fuels are just the beginning.


The issue isn't "Stop using fossil fuels this instant!" It's "Find a reliable alternative ASAP!" And if we can't do that soon enough, then we'll need to slash our energy usage until we can find a replacement. I've sequenced the issue in an easy to understand way:


1.) We can't stop using fossil fuels until we can replace them fully. And:
2.) If we don't stop using them (or keep using them until they're all gone) then we'll wreck the planet as a habitable home. So:
3.) So we need to replace fossil fuels with a viable, cleaner, alternative. But:
4.) If we can't create such a replacement soon enough, then in the name of not devastating the planet's biosphere any further, we'll need to cut back on energy usage. Yet:
5.) No one wants to (or realistically can without massively destabilizing the global civilization) cut back on energy usage. So:
6.) Go back to #3, continue from there.




Your concerns over job loss, national debt, budget deficits, and stagnating economies are all very valid, no one who doesn't get offended and contrarian for a living will deny that. But frankly, I'm not interested in solving these relatively small-scale and short-term problems of economy if it means using large-scale and long-terms injuries to the planet's ability to play host to our species to solve them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nobody's saying to immediately get rid of all fossil fuels, they're saying to regulate the fossil fuel industry to dial back some of its damage and invest more into renewable resources so those companies can actually have room and make some money in the economy and get research funding so the technology can actually develop to an extent where we can use it more effectively, all so we can gradually shift from fossil fuels to alternative renewable energy.

That seems a lot more reasonable to me than your carefree attitude of "**** it the human race is ****ed anyways so why give a shit about not killing it off sooner."
News for you: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2016/03/25/hillary-bernie-hydraulic-fracturing-and-the-future-of-us-oil-and-gas-production/#20339e9f41d9

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You act like democrats are ridiculous for wanting to actually do something about this shit, when I have seen nobody suggest just straight up abandoning fossil fuels all at once immediately, while I have on the other hand seen several people (including yourself) with the attitude that we should do absolutely nothing about this very serious issue.
Not all Democrats.

But if Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders represent the future of Democrats, you are better off with the Republicans for now.

A balanced approach is need of the hour.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Really? Cause the US has more CO2 emissions than any other country aside from China.
China and U.S. are largest consumers of fossil fuels in the world right now. However, CO2 of U.S. have fallen back to pre-1994 levels which is significant improvement, thanks in part to greener extraction techniques. At one stage, U.S. had highest CO2 emissions.

So acknowledge the improvements and encourage the trend.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If the US actually works to solve this problem internally, then we'd be reducing the emissions of the second worst country in terms of CO2 emissions would definitely have an impact.
And if we emphasize a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy in a country as developed as the US, then the technology relating to renewable energy would end up advancing and developing more.

And if that shift actually took place, then such a shift would be much more doable for the rest of the world as a whole, since:
1. The US would actually set a precedent for such a shift happening
2. The necessary technology would be much more developed
3. The US, a major world power and one of the members of the Council of Five or whatever in the UN, could actually push for changes in international law and policy to drive such a change on a Global scale while actually being a good example rather than coming across as a bunch of hypocrites.
All of that is happening. Have you been living under a rock?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This is some of the most childish thinking I've ever heard. "The human race is gonna die off anyways, so let's not give a **** about trying to make it last longer or trying not to make it end even sooner than it otherwise would" is childish, lazy, and self-destructive.

That's tantamount to a person saying "Well I'm gonna die someday anyways, so I'm gonna forgo my physical health for instant gratification and eat like a pig and die of health problems before I'm forty" or "I'm gonna die one day so I'm gonna **** as many bitches as possible and get aids and die" or "I'm gonna die anyways someday and school is tedious so I'm just gonna **** around in school and not give a **** about my education and have a really shitty future when I don't have enough of an education to make a decent life for myself."

It's the same shitty, immature, lazy and childish principal demonstrated above, but it's even worse because whereas the above examples are people ****ing themselves over with their shitty short term decisions that don't take the future into consideration at all, people like you are ****ing over the rest of the planet as well, and future generations that will either be ****ed over by our shitty decisions or never get the opportunity to experience life in the first place because we ****ed the human race over prematurely.
Not going to bother with this drivel.

I am an advocate of eco-friendly stuff but I am also pragmatic and understand how things work in reality.

Modern era society is the product of fossil fuel industry. Don't take its perks for granted. Our life-styles depend upon it. We should strive to make it greener, not shut it down. Learn a thing or two about economics.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oi vey. No sane and informed person could or would argue for less energy use, or a societal devolution back to pre-industry. That's the purview of Luddites and Tyler Durden.
Good to know that.

That's the purview of Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders as well. Kindly do something about them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When Yellowstone blows, or when an asteroid collides with Earth again, we have to either not be here, or have the technological capacity to mitigate or prevent the disaster. And doing so will require shitloads of energy. If we ever hope to move up the Kardashev scale, we need to harness more energy. Fossil fuels are just the beginning.
When a volcano becomes active, it can erupt at any moment. Volcanic activity can be tracked but eruptions are unpredictable. Ask any volcanologist.

1. Yellowstone volcano is active. Scary thing is that it is not the only supervolcano that is active.

2. A large asteroid will come very close to Earth in 2030s which is not far off. Chances of collision cannot be ruled out.

A major disaster can occur on any fine day. If mother nature decides to blow-up on us anytime soon, it will. Fossil fuel industry is almost a non-factor.

Not excusing our responsibility here. Just stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The issue isn't "Stop using fossil fuels this instant!" It's "Find a reliable alternative ASAP!" And if we can't do that soon enough, then we'll need to slash our energy usage until we can find a replacement. I've sequenced the issue in an easy to understand way:


1.) We can't stop using fossil fuels until we can replace them fully. And:
2.) If we don't stop using them (or keep using them until they're all gone) then we'll wreck the planet as a habitable home. So:
3.) So we need to replace fossil fuels with a viable, cleaner, alternative. But:
4.) If we can't create such a replacement soon enough, then in the name of not devastating the planet's biosphere any further, we'll need to cut back on energy usage. Yet:
5.) No one wants to (or realistically can without massively destabilizing the global civilization) cut back on energy usage. So:
6.) Go back to #3, continue from there.
I am sorry but Bernie's statement gives that kind of vibe. He wants to terminate shale revolution outright, no ifs and buts about it. This is reckless and alarming. So what is the immediate alternative, if shale revolution is to be terminated?

You are thinking through it but the current crop of Democrats? This is the issue. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are at the helm of affairs in the Democrats circles. Not a good sign.

Bill Clinton was smart. I wonder why he is putting up with Hillary.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your concerns over job loss, national debt, budget deficits, and stagnating economies are all very valid, no one who doesn't get offended and contrarian for a living will deny that. But frankly, I'm not interested in solving these relatively small-scale and short-term problems of economy if it means using large-scale and long-terms injuries to the planet's ability to play host to our species to solve them.
Their is no escape from these seemingly short-term problems either. They have the power to disrupt our way of life, if ignored.

Yes, I understand your concern. However, you need to look at Industrial trends and trust their work. They want to make it green but they cannot do that, if stopped. Research cannot happen without adequate funding and people on-board. And people don't work for free.

I read the rest of your post, but after I saw it turn political with Sanders and Clinton popping up again... f*ckssakes...


I'll just say that, regardless of the validity of their stance on fracking (which is not without its own considerable problems, regardless of industry attempts to "make it greener", I prefer my politicians to be concerned about and attempting a solution to climate change, not ignoring it and calling it a hoax.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, I understand your concern. However, you need to look at Industrial trends and trust their work. They want to make it green but they cannot do that, if stopped. Research cannot happen without adequate funding and people on-board. And people don't work for free. I don't trust private industry. I don't trust them to do something that is expensive and time consuming on their own if the government isn't forcing them to. I'm not a bitterly cynical person, but I have no faith in a massive, global, multi-bazillion dollar industry that doesn't answer to the voting electorate to NOT focus on short term gain in favour of long term solutions.



And keep that line of yours about 'adequate funding' in mind for at least the next four years. Here's hoping certain things on the U.S. don't get their budget slashed for the sake of increasing the military spending another $100 billion or so.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
After re-reading his OP, I can't find any acknowledgement that man made climate change is a threat. I can only take that to mean that he believes it doesn't even exist, or that it's insignificant.

Which... yeah, how do you argue with someone like that? "It's a conspiracy!" "It's a hoax!" "Climate scientists are all shills!" And if he's not a conspiracy theorist, then he's willfully avoiding all data and research that shows man-made climate change exists, and is a huge threat to our civilization and the planet's biodiversity.

But don't take ma jerbs.

You can't have an honest argument with people who shield themselves from reason.

Stop the nonsense in this thread.

Emperordmb makes good points and SWLegend is hugely misinformed.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Right.

Look at this:

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2015-large.jpg

Notice the percentage of petroleum in use? That is not changing anytime soon. Electric cars are a step in the right direction but they will not replace other cars in 2017.

No problem with promoting alternatives but change should come with planning; not in a haphazard way. If you will stop extracting fossil fuels, you will have to import them from other countries and this is contributing to trade deficit (exports < imports). National debt is climbing as a consequence and cost of energy is increasing. Jobs opportunities are limited and people have to struggle more to pay the bills. Rich (including politicians) are profiting while working classes continue to suffer. The economy will continue to experience periods of recession.

It is really stupid to ignore economics for the sake of appeasing a lobby. Please understand that climate change is inevitable and a part of natural order.

Our fight should be directed towards pollution. But stopping the industry and reliance on imports for domestic energy requirements is not a sustainable goal.

Or you could just invest in LFTR and solve all those problems and many more besides.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nobody's saying to immediately get rid of all fossil fuels, they're saying to regulate the fossil fuel industry to dial back some of its damage and invest more into renewable resources so those companies can actually have room and make some money in the economy

This is failed logic. The fact that renewable energy providers don't "have room" in the economy means that as-is they aren't efficient. Leaning on them is not going to be a good thing for the economy no matter how you look at it.



That's all well and good, but not particularly related to how we handle the fossil fuel industry.



So what's your plan for dealing with China?



This may be true.



...what? We're the USA. It's our job to be self-righteous hypocrites.



The global scale aside, what you described isn't being ignorant of the future, but choosing not to care about it. There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles? I agree that making that choice for the rest of the world would be problematic, though.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles?Lol dafuq.

EDIT: Ah I see, your referring to DMB's ethics rant in general.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I read the rest of your post, but after I saw it turn political with Sanders and Clinton popping up again... f*ckssakes...
My argument has 3 aspects to it:

1. Political
2. Economic
3. Environment

We need politicians who are levelheaded and realistic in their perceptions about important stuff. We should not bring those politicians to power who are a bunch of hypocrites and a threat to societal well-being.

An (educated) society will elect the right people. By education, I assume that people are well-aware of basics of economy and society.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'll just say that, regardless of the validity of their stance on fracking (which is not without its own considerable problems, regardless of industry attempts to "make it greener", I prefer my politicians to be concerned about and attempting a solution to climate change, not ignoring it and calling it a hoax.
And what are those considerable problems?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't trust private industry. I don't trust them to do something that is expensive and time consuming on their own if the government isn't forcing them to. I'm not a bitterly cynical person, but I have no faith in a massive, global, multi-bazillion dollar industry that doesn't answer to the voting electorate to NOT focus on short term gain in favour of long term solutions.
Those corporations create jobs and sustain countless families around the world. They contribute to the economy and society in a meaningful way.

Form where do you think funding of politicians come? From the corporations. People elect politicians but corporations fund them. Industry is not trustworthy but politicians are?

Laws are policies should be devised to regulate Industrial developments, not kill the Industry itself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And keep that line of yours about 'adequate funding' in mind for at least the next four years. Here's hoping certain things on the U.S. don't get their budget slashed for the sake of increasing the military spending another $100 billion or so.
My friend,

Modern society is a complex construct. Everything is important in it and security cannot be ignored. Military creates jobs as well and improvements is necessary for it to be prepared for emerging threats. Another state will show you no mercy, if it can kick your butt.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Emperordmb makes good points and SWLegend is hugely misinformed.
Oh yes! After years of education, 3 degrees under my belt and corporate experience, I am hugely misinformed.

Mind telling me where I got it wrong?

Everything of daily use such as notebook, internet, mobile, furniture, car, electrical appliances, bathroom accessories, kitchen items - your entire home and office - is a product or by-product of fossil fuel industry. The same industry that fulfills your daily energy needs and is the engine of the economy of your state.

Academia, Banks, Military, Organizations - all of the modern societal constructs - depend upon fossil fuel industry to function.

Environmentalists like you - oblivious to ground realities of the world - are the real concern. Your kind takes every aspect of modern society for granted but want to be part of it (hypocrisy at its finest). But your kind wants to terminate the fossil fuel industry as well. Mind telling me how you will run the state after that?

Originally posted by Firefly218
No one is saying we should abruptly close down the fossil fuel industry, that needs to be done gradually. What we're saying needs to be done is more investment in cheaper and efficient clean energy. Development of solar technology and improvement of wind farm effectiveness. Stuff like that.

Unfortunately, republicans would rather completely reject the science of global warming and instead embolden the fossil fuel industry by lifting regulations and giving tax breaks.
If solar energy and wind farms could fulfill all of our requirements on a societal level, I assure you that the entire world would have shifted to them by now. Their is a limit to how many wind farms you can install and where you can install them throughout the country (cost factor is another headache). Solar energy is not a substitute for everything else either.

FYI: China build and tested a (solar) car prototype a few years back. Guess what? It failed.

The electric cars that are much greener than petroleum cars (and possibly their replacement) - contain copper. So copper mining industry will sustain them. Guess what? Relying on a single source of energy is disastrous. Oil is not going anywhere anytime soon.

U.S. is already sustaining itself on several sources of energy. But collapsing an entire industry to appease environmentalists is reckless and stupid. And eco-friendly stuff is not cheap. Who is gonna pay for all that eco-friendly stuff? Your dad or Obama?

Economic matters should be handled with great care and changes should be calculated in advance. Don't take the economy of your country for granted. It will collapse, if taken for granted.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This is failed logic. The fact that renewable energy providers don't "have room" in the economy means that as-is they aren't efficient. Leaning on them is not going to be a good thing for the economy no matter how you look at it.
Well between that and the fact that the fossil fuel industry already has a pretty unparalleled foothold. Sure it'll be costly, but if done gradually I think it's a worthy investment in the future of our planet

Originally posted by NewGuy01
That's all well and good, but not particularly related to how we handle the fossil fuel industry.
Eh, I was speaking in a comparative sense between the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy industry.

And it is sort of the same issue when the same apathy driving people to not want to regulate the fossil fuel industry drives people to not care about that research and development, not to mention that this sounds like exactly the sort of thing fossil fuel lobbyists would fight.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
So what's your plan for dealing with China?
The US can't impose laws on China, so I say change our ways internally, develop renewable resource technology more, then with actual progress to speak of on a national level and advances in technology push for international policy on the matter in the UN.

Or shit maybe with an advancement in technology, China might do it on their own considering I doubt their pleased with the air quality in their country actually being a detriment to their physical health.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
...what? We're the USA. It's our job to be self-righteous hypocrites.
While that may be true, the fact of the matter remains that we could push international policy better if we actually demonstrated ourselves to follow what we were trying to push.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
The global scale aside, what you described isn't being ignorant of the future, but choosing not to care about it. There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles? I agree that making that choice for the rest of the world would be problematic, though.
How clever, you're only like the twelfth person whose tried to guilt trip me for that

I've adopted a stance of not hating people and having a general respect/empathy/love for all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean I refuse to recognize self-destructive actions as actually being self-destructive. If it's a calculated decision to live well but short, fair enough, but I'm speaking more about the people who want to live long happy lives and engage in self-destructive actions. The descriptive language I used for that attitude on a personal level was really more a carryover from how I feel about applying that on a societal scale than me holding contempt for people's individual lifestyles.

And really the point I was making was that an attitude that is self-destructive for the lifespan of an individual is absolutely terrible to carry over to the lifespan of the entire human race.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well between that and the fact that the fossil fuel industry already has a pretty unparalleled foothold. Sure it'll be costly, but if done gradually I think it's a worthy investment in the future of our planet


Eh, I was speaking in a comparative sense between the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy industry.

And it is sort of the same issue when the same apathy driving people to not want to regulate the fossil fuel industry drives people to not care about that research and development, not to mention that this sounds like exactly the sort of thing fossil fuel lobbyists would fight.


The US can't impose laws on China, so I say change our ways internally, develop renewable resource technology more, then with actual progress to speak of on a national level and advances in technology push for international policy on the matter in the UN.

Or shit maybe with an advancement in technology, China might do it on their own considering I doubt their pleased with the air quality in their country actually being a detriment to their physical health.


While that may be true, the fact of the matter remains that we could push international policy better if we actually demonstrated ourselves to follow what we were trying to push.


How clever, you're only like the twelfth person whose tried to guilt trip me for that

I've adopted a stance of not hating people and having a general respect/empathy/love for all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean I refuse to recognize self-destructive actions as actually being self-destructive. If it's a calculated decision to live well but short, fair enough, but I'm speaking more about the people who want to live long happy lives and engage in self-destructive actions. The descriptive language I used for that attitude on a personal level was really more a carryover from how I feel about applying that on a societal scale than me holding contempt for people's individual lifestyles.

And really the point I was making was that an attitude that is self-destructive for the lifespan of an individual is absolutely terrible to carry over to the lifespan of the entire human race.
Much better.

Look at this matter in this way: fossil fuel industry has contributed to global warming phenomenon since its inception. It is an alarming development and needs attention. However, shutting down fossil fuel industry or not facilitating its advancements is not the solution.

Do you really think that if U.S. shuts down its fossil fuel industry, rest of the world will follow? No.

These are my suggestions:

1. Don't destroy your economy for the sake of appeasing environmentalists. Don't be reckless and stupid about economic matters.
2. Prioritize both Industrial base and environmental concerns but not at the cost of the other. A balanced approach is need of the hour.
3. Promote eco-friendly stuff but don't kill other stuff without a contingency plan.
4. Don't kill corporations and job opportunities. Because none of this will stop global warming or rest of the world from contributing to it.
5. Make your vote count (but don't be blind). If Democrats become reckless about economic matters, remove them from power during the next elections or stage mass protests to knock sense into them. Same goes for Republicans.
6. Most importantly, educate yourself about the importance of fossil fuel industry and its contribution to modern societal construct. Don't take it for granted.

U.S. has now reached a point that it needs to revive its industry for its economic well-being. It risks becoming a failed state otherwise and its economic demise will orchestrate global recession from which a number of states may not be able to recover.

Modern societal construct doesn't depends upon environmentalists to function, it depends upon fossil fuel industry for the said purpose. Environmentalists sound like cake-eaters (they want all the perks of modern society but want to kill fossil fuel industry as well). Stop this nonsense and be realistic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bringing back coal in any massive amount like the 'good ole days' is stupid, it's a dying industry; the future lies elsewhere in new technologies that will become better and cheaper as technology progresses, something that has been steadily happening for a long time now. Fossil fuels are here to stay in some form, as not everyone is getting an electric car tomorrow, but improvements in fuel efficiency in turn lower the need for fossil fuels. eg Adding solar panels decreases the load for conventional electricity to a home. Water turbines in our water lines creates energy that can power buildings about them etc. etc. etc.

While other developing countries will pollute, they'll also see what's going on elsewhere and jump onboard in time. China for example is starting to invest heavily into cleaner energy sources because the air over their major cities is/has become a health risk.

In short, the future isn't in the past; morons like you really make the world a worst place.
So what is the plan of environmentalists? To terminate the domestic coal industry prematurely like Obama is doing?

I am not suggesting that we stick to coal as an exclusive source of energy. However, replacement should be a gradual and a well-calculated move. And even before that, it is important to understand if coal as a source of energy can be entirely phased out.

Take a look at uses of coal: https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal

Coal is involved in manufacturing of a large number of products (in use) in any country. If environmentalists are aware of alternatives that can replace coal in those products as the vital ingredient, please highlight them. Otherwise, STFU.

Utilization of coal as a source of energy continues in reality and if it is not coming through domestic sources, it has to come through foreign sources = more imports. The Obama administration continues to stimulate trade deficit (instead of economy) with its irrational policies and national debt continues to climb. Prices of relevant products continue to appreciate as a consequence. Then government imposes higher taxes to collect revenue to keep up with the targets. And people continue to complain about bills. It is a vicious cycle. But it will eventually destroy the economy.

In-fact, efforts are being made to make coal industry eco-friendly: https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research

However, the idiotic Obama administration has imposed restrictions on coal mining activities instead of encouraging clean coal revolution. Problem at hand is that these stupid politicians don't understand that they are ruining the economy with such reckless initiatives. Several coal mining firms have filed for bankruptcy up-till now, more jobs will be lost, coal exports are falling and imports are increasing. Economy remains strained.

#mega triggered. I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.

Originally posted by Stop the hate
#mega triggered. I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.
This debate is not for nandearthals.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
nandearthals.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This debate is not for nandearthals.

Even if it was for neanderthals..STH would still be outclassed intellectually by them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well between that and the fact that the fossil fuel industry already has a pretty unparalleled foothold.

That's because the current alternatives are costly and don't work very well.



Fair point; I could also say lobbyists are yet another issue in of themselves, though.



That's the tricky part. Climate change is an international issue. Even if we were to dial back on environmentally harmful practices ourselves, (at substantial personal cost) there's no assurance that the rest of the world will follow suit. If they don't, our contributions'd help, but we'd still be no less doomed; it's not hard to understand why people aren't excited by that prospect.



Theoretically. That would be uncharacteristic of us, though.



Dear god, why are you always so angry? I just want you to be consistent.



--and this ties in to that discussion from a couple months ago. I recall you went on about something along the lines of, "It's stupid to fight with people over differing opinions," but like I said, it's really not that simple, is it?

Originally posted by Stop the hate
I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.

This statement pretty much proves you have zero self reflection going on.

This is funny, I always love when people are so indoctrinated into an idea they can't even begin to see the impact.

Here is the real question, are you willing to let the poorest people in the country die to extend the time till the the next die off?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
This is funny, I always love when people are so indoctrinated into an idea they can't even begin to see the impact.

Here is the real question, are you willing to let the poorest people in the country die to extend the time till the the next die off?

But there is one variable you have to consider. Which year the poor people are dying in. If it's not an election year then they are not going to care much.

Originally posted by Surtur
Even if it was for neanderthals..STH would still be outclassed intellectually by them.

Admittedly I just skimmed through this thread, but I want to put it out there:

natural climate change vs. human-made climate change.

It seems that both of these get mixed up a lot in the media and in general discussion. Climate is changing, but the question is about the causes. It would be great if in this thread we could be precise what we are talking about.


Peace!

Originally posted by Stigma
Admittedly I just skimmed through this thread, but I want to put it out there:

natural climate change vs. human-made climate change.

It seems that both of these get mixed up a lot in the media and in general discussion. Climate is changing, but the question is about the causes. It would be great if in this thread we could be precise what we are talking about.


Peace!

Also people seem to get confused over how science works. Let us say I believe a certain thing, and 1,000 other scientists do as well. Consensus doesn't equate to reality. 1,000 people could think one thing, 1 guy could think the other, and that lone guy could be the one who is correct.

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence? I assume there isn't a single respectable scientist who has come out against the idea of man made climate change? Surely all the detractors must be saying weird things like "it's a Chinese hoax". It would be disappointing to learn there's legit arguments against man made climate change, because the liberal media sure doesn't reflect that.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Look at this matter in this way: fossil fuel industry has contributed to global warming phenomenon since its inception. It is an alarming development and needs attention. So man made climate change is real now or...?

Originally posted by Surtur
Also people seem to get confused over how science works. Let us say I believe a certain thing, and 1,000 other scientists do as well. Consensus doesn't equate to reality. 1,000 people could think one thing, 1 guy could think the other, and that lone guy could be the one who is correct.

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence? I assume there isn't a single respectable scientist who has come out against the idea of man made climate change? Surely all the detractors must be saying weird things like "it's a Chinese hoax". It would be disappointing to learn there's legit arguments against man made climate change, because the liberal media sure doesn't reflect that. I agree, the world is also flat.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I agree, the world is also flat.

No see we proved it wasn't. Has man made climate change been 100% proven, with irrefutable evidence and zero respectable scientists challenging it?

It's either a yes or no.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
So man made climate change is real now or...?

I agree, the world is also flat.

Meh. Its all a conspiracy being instigated by those Aryan Super Races from the Center of the Earth.

Get with the program people.

Originally posted by Surtur
No see we proved it wasn't. Has man made climate change been 100% proven, with irrefutable evidence and zero respectable scientists challenging it?

It's either a yes or no. Others believe otherwise, that one person could be right.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Others believe otherwise, that one person could be right.

Lol yeah I didn't think you'd come back with anything of substance. To which damn, you sure you don't work for the CIA?

Originally posted by Surtur

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence?

Probably because embracing the idea would threaten a trillion dollar industry.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
So man made climate change is real now or...?
Truth is somewhat in the middle.

Climate change is a manifestation of fluctuations in radiation levels of our planet from time-to-time, a natural phenomenon at most and an important driver of evolution in life-forms. However, external factors can contribute to it such as an asteroid hitting Earth, significant volcanic activity, changes in sun and/or man-made fossil fuel industry.

However, the extent of impact of fossil fuel industry on climate change is absolutely debatable. I am not dismissing this side-effect of fossil fuel industry (it is obvious), I am just pointing out some ground realities of our world, modern societal construct and its perks for all of us.

This debate is intended to make environmentalists understand the importance of fossil fuel industry for mankind at large; you environmentalists owe your comfortable lifestyles to this industrial development just like all of us.

Now, a balanced approach to the problem at hand is that we all put pressure on industries to go green. This shift is expensive and time-consuming, but possible and being considered (shale revolution is an example). Don't support policymakers who want to kill domestic fossil fuel industry or force it offshore. This won't end well for you, your country and the world at large. Be pragmatic and realistic about issues at hand and how to address them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol yeah I didn't think you'd come back with anything of substance. To which damn, you sure you don't work for the CIA? To a stupid question? Why would I? Can you prove that the moon landings were 100% real?

And if you think that there is a group of credible scientists out there who can demonstrate humans aren't contributing to climate change to a serious degree then present the discourse, don't ask me to prove a negative.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Truth is somewhat in the middle.

Climate change is a manifestation of fluctuations in radiation levels of our planet from time-to-time, a natural phenomenon at most and an important driver of evolution in life-forms. However, external factors can contribute to it such as an asteroid hitting Earth, significant volcanic activity, changes in sun and/or man-made fossil fuel industry.Uhuh, but can you actually prove that climate change, at its current rate, is remotely inevitable?

Is it? Multiple reports on peer-reviewed climate change research reveal that 97% of scientists are in agreement that 1. global warming is real and 2. it is primarily man-made. And furthermore, many are reporting that the Earth's temperature is imminently approaching a critical levels. That, for me, is more than enough cause to dispense with the "debate" and take serious and immediate action.

Whereas by the same logic you've applied here resident orangutang and future POTUS Donald Trump, is planning to revive dead and dying coal industries, cut funding to critical climate research and environmental protection agencies, and pull America out of a global climate deal to cut down on CO2 emissions. Or in other words its an incredibly dangerous and destructive point of view.

Are rather ironic claim given your dependency on the current state of the environment for well, everything. Don't you think your "comfortable lifestyle" will too find itself upset when faced with global food and water shortages, flooding coastlines and destructive weather events? And understand that the economic impact of climate change is predicted to be equally devastating.

A reasonable approach take but downplaying the dangers of climate change is not the way to go about achieving it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uhuh, but can you actually prove that climate change, at its current rate, is remotely inevitable?
Is this even a question? Climate change is inevitable. We cannot stop this process even with eco-friendly industrial practices. See below.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Is it? Multiple reports on peer-reviewed climate change research reveal that 97% of scientists are in agreement that 1. global warming is real and 2. it is primarily man-made. And furthermore, many are reporting that the Earth's temperature is imminently approaching a critical levels. That, for me, is more than enough cause to dispense with the "debate" and take serious and immediate action.
OK! For the sake of discussion, I embrace the assertion that the existing period of global warming is predominately man-made.

I would still reiterate that "Earth's temperature is imminently approaching critical levels" is a subjective claim. Global warming is a long-term trend (consensus among climatologists, 2014) and natural developments are likely to slow it down (the cause-effect factor). It is still early to predict the course of future events on the basis of existing data, further research is needed.

Now, what should be the serious and immediate action in your opinion?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Whereas by the same logic you've applied here resident orangutang and future POTUS Donald Trump, is planning to revive dead and dying coal industries, cut funding to critical climate research and environmental protection agencies, and pull America out of a global climate deal to cut down on CO2 emissions. Or in other words its an incredibly dangerous and destructive point of view.
FYI:

If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth's surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

Taken from Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (2014) https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes]

Eco-friendly movement is not going to make much difference in the long-term, my friend. Shocking, right?

I don't get these premature jabs at Trump administration. This team comprises of entrepreneurs with considerable industrial insight and corporate experience, and it will stimulate American economy which is (and should be) the most pressing concern right now. We can also be confident about the fact that a large number of issues will be brought to their attention (including climatic concerns) when they are running the affairs.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Are rather ironic claim given your dependency on the current state of the environment for well, everything. Don't you think your "comfortable lifestyle" will too find itself upset when faced with global food and water shortages, flooding coastlines and destructive weather events? And understand that the economic impact of climate change is predicted to be equally devastating.
See above.

Trust me! You need a flourishing economy and lot of money to cope with emerging trends and crises periods in the future. An economic collapse is not going to help you. So fix the economy alongside encouraging eco-friendly practices.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
A reasonable approach take but downplaying the dangers of climate change is not the way to go about achieving it.
Fair.

Eco-friendly industrial practices will, at the least, lower pollution levels for the greater good of all. This is sufficient reason for me to encourage the shift but in pragmatic fashion.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Is this even a question? Climate change is inevitable. We are not going to make much difference even with eco-friendly industrial practices. See below.Yes it's a question, and I'm asking you to prove it, so get to it.

Uh-huh, global temperature records have been broken for third year running now and continue to align with predictive models. You'll also find that we've been seeing the impact first hand for sometime. For example in this year alone there's been crippling drought in California, unprecedented wildfires in Tenessesse, as well as intensified hurricanes, cyclones etc. around the world, all of which there is strong evidence to suggest has been aggravated by climate change, and just last month, a rift in one of Antartica's largest ice shelfs just got 18km bigger.

And yes, you'll find plenty of models that predict critical impacts on our planet should the global temperature continue to rise, models based on peer-reviewed research, not opinions. Here's a fun one:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-icons-at-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633

This isn't the time to be taking a wait and see approach. And the idea that we lack sufficient data to make predictions about the future is fiction. Not that any lack of clarity in that regard is cause for relaxing climate change policy, rather the opposite, you don't confront the unknown with a blase faire attitude. But I'm sure taking a dip in downtown New York will be great fun, yeah, no cause for concern.

That would be to curb CO2 emissions as much as is reasonably possible, with binding, enforceable methods mind you, making further research into climate change a priority and making real efforts to invest in eco-friendly power solutions.

No? I'm well aware that recent studies have being pointing to the notion that we are beyond the point of no return, but that hardly means that we are powerless to mitigate climate catastrophe by taking relevant action. This is not difficult to understand.

And funnily enough, that same source concludes that "most of recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities" and recommends action, not complacency.

Maybe because of the worrying lack of concerning regarding climate change expressed by the Trump administration, and the equally worrying set of policies that they plan to implement, or something.

Because when the future President of the one the largest CO2 emitters on the planet has has said climate change is a Chinese hoax, that's cause for concern.

I would love to, but I'm not a world leader. On the other hand no, I don't trust the Trump administration to implement such a strategy, and appears much more likely to send environmentalist progress back by several decades.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
To a stupid question? Why would I? Can you prove that the moon landings were 100% real?

Nice dodge.



Never said I think that, I merely wondered if there is 100% irrefutable evidence.

You have dodged it with stupid shit about the earth being flat and the moon landings.

Which honestly tells me you don't have the evidence I'm asking for.

I mean seriously, do you give a shit at all about climate change? That's a serious question, because if you do give a shit about it, wouldn't you be eager to show irrefutable evidence to those who ask? As opposed to bringing up the earth being flat and moon landings. If you provide irrefutable evidence and the person doesn't want to accept it that is one thing, but if you're unwilling to even provide it at all..that just undermines your goals of climate change being taken seriously.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Probably because embracing the idea would threaten a trillion dollar industry.

Beniboy seems unwilling so I guess I'll ask you: no credible scientists feel man made climate change isn't a thing?

If there is 100% irrefutable evidence out there and it's being ignored, yeah I'd agree money is a factor.

I must admit I'd also be incredibly disturbed if credible scientists out there do not aspire to the idea of man made climate change, because it's been shoved down our throats like it is irrefutable, so it better actually *be* irrefutable. I personally have always thought climate change was a thing, but I never actually looked at the specific evidence. The way people talk I expect that it's only the wacko scientists who think man made climate change isn't real, correct?

Otherwise, like I said, I'd be disturbed.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nice dodge.

Never said I think that, I merely wondered if there is 100% irrefutable evidence.

You have dodged it with stupid shit about the earth being flat and the moon landings.

Which honestly tells me you don't have the evidence I'm asking for.

I mean seriously, do you give a shit at all about climate change? That's a serious question, because if you do give a shit about it, wouldn't you be eager to show irrefutable evidence to those who ask? As opposed to bringing up the earth being flat and moon landings. If you provide irrefutable evidence and the person doesn't want to accept it that is one thing, but if you're unwilling to even provide it at all..that just undermines your goals of climate change being taken seriously. I'm trying to point out to you that there is no such thing as 100% irrefutable evidence, even the laws of physics don't possess that, therefore your questions is yes, just about as stupid as asking the same for the moon landings or Earth being round. No, of course no such evidence does not exist, and it means the square root of jack shit. Try and like be intelligent lol.

On the other hand is the case for man-made climate change incredibly strong? Strong enough to result in a 97% consensus among climate researchers? Yes. Is this evidence widely available for you to peruse on something called the interwebz? Also yes.

P.S. No, I am never eager to engage with imbeciles, but repeatedly find myself having to do so regardless.

To those in the thread asking, "What about China? Even if the U.S. changes, they're number one in terms of CO2 and other emissions!"

China is investing far more heavily in clean energy like solar and wind becoming a major part of their infrastructure than the U.S. China went so far as to stop the majority of non-Olympic related traffic during the games there, so to say that they'll go as far as they have to in certain circumstances is pretty clear. That anecdote aside, their commitment to change is far more apparent than ours, which is sad considering that they're still very much a country based around a lot of bureaucracy and other foolishness, yet they're getting it done.

Fracking and all of these other petroleum led initiatives aren't improving the environment and inherently pose risks to the short term and long term outlook when it comes to the environment. No, we don't need to kill off the oil industry, but we need to focus resource wherever possible to limiting it as much as possible. That certainly rings true as well for coal.

Iceland: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Lesotho: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Albania: Site of how many years of destruction via a protracted war? 85% renewable energy.

Paraguay: 90% of its own power and 19% of Brazil's supplied through clean energy sources in the country.

Bhutan: Exports 75% of the clean power that it makes to India.

Let's not act like the US reliance on fossil fuels is because clean energy sources don't exist. The fossil fuel industry has lobbied against attempts to change our infrastructure in ways that would allow for larger sources of clean and renewable energy, period. If you want to ignore that, you're just a shill for big oil.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm trying to point out to you that there is no such thing as 100% irrefutable evidence, even the laws of physics don't possess that, therefore your questions is yes, just about as stupid as asking the same for the moon landings or Earth being round. No, of course no such evidence does not exist, and it means the square root of jack shit. Try and like be intelligent lol.

On the other hand is the case for man-made climate change incredibly strong? Strong enough to result in a 97% consensus among climate researchers? Yes. Is this evidence widely available for you to peruse on something called the interwebz? Also yes.

P.S. No, I am never eager to engage with imbeciles, but repeatedly find myself having to do so regardless.

But you have also avoided answering whether or not any credible scientists do not believe in climate change.

Also some of your reasoning is just another dodge. Nothing such as irrefutable evidence? So you are saying we don't have irrefutable evidence the earth isn't flat? Really? To claim we don't have irrefutable evidence of the moon landings is one thing, but to say we don't even have irrefutable evidence the earth isn't flat is just utterly insane.

Try not being so smugly moronic next time you decide to insult someone's intellect.

That question has already been addressed dear, like I said it's not up to me to prove a negative.

And obviously somethings are far more certain the others, but the point is 100% irrefutable proof of anything is a) impossible b) not needed to be sure of something. Again try to be more smart.

Regardless I addressed that question too, and the answer is no. So do you have anything more to say?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
That question has already been addressed dear, like I said its not up to me to prove a negative.

You've dodged it, yes.



So you feel it is impossible to 100% prove the Earth isn't flat? That's quite interesting.

I've noticed a funny trend that the people here who insult the intelligence of others the most tend to be the least intelligent members. Why do you feel that is? Is it a way to make up for their own intellectual short comings?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
To those in the thread asking, "What about China? Even if the U.S. changes, they're number one in terms of CO2 and other emissions!"

China is investing far more heavily in clean energy like solar and wind becoming a major part of their infrastructure than the U.S. China went so far as to stop the majority of non-Olympic related traffic during the games there, so to say that they'll go as far as they have to in certain circumstances is pretty clear. That anecdote aside, their commitment to change is far more apparent than ours, which is sad considering that they're still very much a country based around a lot of bureaucracy and other foolishness, yet they're getting it done.

Fracking and all of these other petroleum led initiatives aren't improving the environment and inherently pose risks to the short term and long term outlook when it comes to the environment. No, we don't need to kill off the oil industry, but we need to focus resource wherever possible to limiting it as much as possible. That certainly rings true as well for coal.

Iceland: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Lesotho: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Albania: Site of how many years of destruction via a protracted war? 85% renewable energy.

Paraguay: 90% of its own power and 19% of Brazil's supplied through clean energy sources in the country.

Bhutan: Exports 75% of the clean power that it makes to India.

Let's not act like the US reliance on fossil fuels is because clean energy sources don't exist. The fossil fuel industry has lobbied against attempts to change our infrastructure in ways that would allow for larger sources of clean and renewable energy, period. If you want to ignore that, you're just a shill for big oil. Yeah, China has serious pollution problems in their cities, it's only logical they put effort into cleaning up.

Originally posted by Surtur
You've dodged it, yes.


So you feel it is impossible to 100% prove the Earth isn't flat? That's quite interesting.

I've noticed a funny trend that the people here who insult the intelligence of others the most tend to be the least intelligent members. Why do you feel that is? Is it a way to make up for their own intellectual short comings? Wow, look how far you've managed to move away from your point, if you've nothing relevant left to add could you nurse your bruised ego elsewhere? Thanks.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Wow, look how far you've managed to move away from your point, if you've nothing relevant left to add could you nurse your bruised ego elsewhere? Thanks.

Lol even Wally West would be impressed by your dodging skills.

You more or less pull the same tactic whenever someone makes you look foolish.

I'm not sure what else to suggest, dry those tears?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm not sure what else to suggest, dry those tears?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see. That's cool.

What can I say, I was never good at consoling losurs.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
What can I say, I was never good at consoling losurs.

Losurs eh? Lol, you do you.

Originally posted by Surtur
No credible scientists feel man made climate change isn't a thing?

Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.



100% irrefutable evidence is rarely a thing in modern science. Generally what's universally accepted is what the experts agree is most likely to be the case based on the evidence, and that's probably not the wrong way to go about things.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Yes it's a question, and I'm asking you to prove it, so get to it.
Earth's climatic conditions are (already) changing and their effects are slowly (and surely) becoming apparent to anybody who is paying attention; we identify this shift as "global warming."

I have noticed this shift at personal capacity in a span of few years, where I live. Winter season used to start during the month of September (each year) here. However, delays are occurring now. In 2015, Winter season started during the month of October here. And further delay in 2016. I have also noticed a decline in the periods of colder climatic conditions here; hotter climatic conditions are lasting longer now. Not just me but scores of people (here) have noticed the aforementioned shifts and acknowledge them in discussions.

I am not sure what changes you might be noticing where you live but you are welcome to share them.

1. So what is actually happening? Earth's axis is shifting a bit.
2. Why Earth's axis is shifting? Polar ice caps are melting and influencing Earth's axis accordingly.
3. So what is causing the polar ice caps to melt? Global warming.

Now, fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of the current phase of global warming! Right?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uh-huh, global temperature records have been broken for third year running now and continue to align with predictive models. You'll also find that we've been seeing the impact first hand for sometime. For example in this year alone there's been crippling drought in California, unprecedented wildfires in Tenessesse, as well as intensified hurricanes, cyclones etc. around the world, all of which there is strong evidence to suggest has been aggravated by climate change, and just last month, a rift in one of Antartica's largest ice shelfs just got 18km bigger.

And yes, you'll find plenty of models that predict critical impacts on our planet should the global temperature continue to rise, models based on peer-reviewed research, not opinions. Here's a fun one:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-icons-at-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633

This isn't the time to be taking a wait and see approach. And the idea that we lack sufficient data to make predictions about the future is fiction. Not that any lack of clarity in that regard is cause for relaxing climate change policy, rather the opposite, you don't confront the unknown with a blase faire attitude. But I'm sure taking a dip in downtown New York will be great fun, yeah, no cause for concern.

That would be to curb CO2 emissions as much as is reasonably possible, with binding, enforceable methods mind you, making further research into climate change a priority and making real efforts to invest in eco-friendly power solutions.
Fair.

Yes, we should do something about this matter. However, my argument is that measures should be pragmatic and calculative. Laying a siege to country-wide fossil fuel extractions (like the idiots Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton suggested) is not going to address this matter and neither this policy is economically feasible for the U.S and other countries. A solid reason is that high concentrations of CO2 emissions will remain in the air for a long time (thousands of years) even if the entire world literally freezes fossil fuel extractions this instant; in other words, global warming process will continue (and is irreversible) no matter what we do now.

So best course of action is to force the fossil fuel industry to turn green but this shift will take time as well. Even Donald Trump is endorsing the "clean coal" industrial initiative. But the grim reality is that all efforts to make American coal mining activity greener have utterly failed so far due to a combination of factors such as emergence of relatively greener substitute in shale revolution and unsuitable policies of Obama administration. The state should have cooperated with the coal mining industry to turn green instead of shutting it down. End-result is loss of a number of corporations, increase in unemployment and greater strain on the already struggling economy.

Since Barack Obama's tenure as POTUS is coming to an end and he is going to live a good life in his new home in Washington DC (filled with mouthwatering luxuries), the incoming Trump administration is left with no choice but to address the economic mess left by Obama administration.

It still baffles me to witness the fact that liberals fail to realize that the (immediate) boogeyman knocking on the door of USA is its worsening economic situation, and continue to blame imaginary boogeymen in White Privilege (so-called), Racism (supposedly country-wide), Russians and Martians for their loss in elections in 2016.

Focus on climate change is practical and a sound policy in the long-term but you are about to drown in the sea of economic crises before that. So worry about an enemy closest to you right now before focusing on the next.

Do the environmentalists seriously think that eco-friendly stuff is cheap? You need funds for that stuff, lot of funds to be precise. And those funds will come from a flourishing economy, not a struggling one. Just look at the cost of wind turbines alone: http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost (and they are not going to fit everywhere).

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No? I'm well aware that recent studies have being pointing to the notion that we are beyond the point of no return, but that hardly means that we are powerless to mitigate climate catastrophe by taking relevant action. This is not difficult to understand.
Yes, I get this.

It is also important to understand that the most we can hope to achieve right now is to slow down global warming process with (worldwide) eco-friendly practices and (delay) the inevitable. However, we are not going to prevent the inevitable. Therefore, a balanced approach is need of the hour, an approach which takes both economics and eco-friendly practices into consideration.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And funnily enough, that same source concludes that "most of recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities" and recommends action, not complacency.
True.

I have obtained a copy of this book.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Maybe because of the worrying lack of concerning regarding climate change expressed by the Trump administration, and the equally worrying set of policies that they plan to implement, or something.
It is important to understand what Trump wants to do and how media is interpreting his intentions. He is not against eco-friendly industrial practices actually. He just wants to make sure that the state itself doesn't hammers the coal mining industry out of existence. He is correct to assume that coal as a source of energy is not going to diminish anytime soon, liberal propaganda notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Because when the future President of the one the largest CO2 emitters on the planet has has said climate change is a Chinese hoax, that's cause for concern.
See above.

Suppose that you become POTUS. What will you do about a large number of families in the U.S. whose income comes from coal mining industry? Destroy the industry and leave them to their fate? These people will fight for their survival, one way or the other. And you will be up against a new episode of law and order situation.

Therefore, a pragmatic approach to the aforementioned problem is to put pressure on the coal mining industry to go green but let the competition take its course and define its fate. Shale revolution is the greatest competitor to coal mining industry and might kill it on its own. As it happens, convince coal miners to go shale. In the end, you achieve the desired results and people are happy.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I would love to, but I'm not a world leader. On the other hand no, I don't trust the Trump administration to implement such a strategy, and appears much more likely to send environmentalist progress back by several decades.
We should give it a chance.

The failure of Obama administration to address the economic woes of a large number of Americans, enabled the entrepreneurs to take advantage of the situation and gain power. It is not that Trump is a better character than Obama in person, Trump's appeal is that he understands the economic situation of the country much better than the latter.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.
@ NewGuy,

You seem like a reasonable and decent person, but labelling the opposition like that is not doing any favors to your position. /shrug

What is more, your point is easily refutable. I doubt you'd label all of these people as charlatans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti
fic_assessment_of_global_warming

EDIT: For some reaoson this link does not work, here type in in Wiki:

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

Yeah, there is a Nobel Laureate, MIT professors and dozens upon dozens of scientists and scholars alike that challenge the notion of human-made climate change.

Some of them argue the precision of research and data used, some flat out oppose the notion of human-made climate change and some even propose a "third way" in the research.

Science is not a matter of dogma and should not be treated as such.


Originally posted by NewGuy01
100% irrefutable evidence is rarely a thing in modern science.
Correct.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Generally what's universally accepted is what the experts agree is most likely to be the case based on the evidence, and that's probably not the wrong way to go about things.
Not at all.

What is mostly accepted by majority of experts does not mean it is most likely to be the best explanation. Just ask Copernicus, Newton, Einstein or any major scientific figure.

What is accepted by most of the scientific community is just a general consensus, not the best answer. And it can easily be changed with new discoveries.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nay, I'm sure there are plenty. Just like there are plenty of "credible scientists" who believe the universe is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, and that evolution is a hoax.

Lol nope. A person isn't credible if they disbelieve in things that have been proven. There isn't a credible scientist who believes in evolution. Well, let me change that. I suppose a scientist who studies..I dunno, fungi..could still be stupid enough to believe evolution isn't a thing.

But if your expertise falls into fields which would include evolution and you do not believe in it? You are so far from credible it's not even funny.

That would be like a college math professor who disagree's 1+1=2.



So do you maybe sorta think people should stop carrying themselves in a way that suggests there is no way they are wrong about climate change?

I'm not saying you specifically do that, but I see these climate changers coming at Trump like there's not even any real debate over it. So there gosh darn best not be any legit debate over it lol. Otherwise all credibility is lost. So I truly truly hope it's only wacko's who don't think man made climate change is real.

So if people are hung up on me using the term 100% irrefutable, okie dokie. It's been changed: there best not be any legit credible debate over man made climate change.

Surtur bout to take names, I'm shakin.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Surtur bout to take names, I'm shakin.

You're in Europe, the only thing that should cause you to start shaking is Syrian refugees coming to rape you and your women.

Alien refugees, in my white community?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Earth's climatic conditions are (already) changing and their effects are slowly (and surely) becoming apparent to anybody who is paying attention; we identify this shift as "global warming."

I have noticed this shift at personal capacity in a span of few years, where I live. Winter season used to start during the month of September (each year) here. However, delays are occurring now. In 2015, Winter season started during the month of October here. And further delay in 2016. I have also noticed a decline in the periods of colder climatic conditions here; hotter climatic conditions are lasting longer now. Not just me but scores of people (here) have noticed the aforementioned shifts and acknowledge them in discussions.

I am not sure what changes you might be noticing where you live but you are welcome to share them.

1. So what is actually happening? Earth's axis is shifting a bit.
2. Why Earth's axis is shifting? Polar ice caps are melting and influencing Earth's axis accordingly.
3. So what is causing the polar ice caps to melt? Global warming.

Now, fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of the current phase of global warming! Right?That's not what I was asking, I'm aware of what global warming is lol, I was questioning your stance that there is little that can be done about mitigating it. However if your argument is that regardless of what we do now, we still face a proverbial carbon hangover, or rather irreversible changes, then fair enough.

Economic infeasibility is the only solid reason here, while I acknowledge that even if carbon emissions were to cease now, we'd still be faced with continued global warming, that is no basis for continuing to emit. Or rather if you've consumed so much alcohol that an extended hangover is a guarantee, a hangover you do not want, the responsible thing to do is not say "f*ck it" and continuing drinking. But rather to stop drinking entirely. The deeply troubling state we are likely already in no grounds to take a softer approach to reducing carbon emissions. Instead the best case scenario remains - in an ideal world - a complete stop to greenhouse gases entirely.

Bear in mind that though we are an adaptable species, there is only so much we can adapt to, and the more emissions we produce, the harder it will be to adapt to a warmer future, however inevitable that maybe.

That said? We are adaptable, and therefore it will come as no surprise that scientists are already looking into ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. If someone would only fund them.

Clean coal seems like a pipe dream more than anything, fact is coal is the worst polluter of all the fossil fuels, so attempting to revive it comes with intrinsic dangers. If Donald Trump had demonstrated serious commitments towards a green future I might be less concerned, but his blase faire attitude leaves much to be desired, instead I have serious doubts that these resurrected industries will be anything but "clean".

And the fact remains what we are discussing is a dying industry, coal prices are tumbling, exports are declining, dozens of major industries are going bankrupt, and as a fossil fuel it's being replaced with better alternatives. Any jobs created by Trump's initiatives would be a stop-gap measure, with little long term prospects. And that's without going in to the fact that in so far, efforts to so much as develop economically viable "clean coal" energy, have also failed.

So no, I'm more inclined to support putting the final nail in the coffin of a dirty industry with one foot in the grave rather than invest in a dangerous waste of time and money attempting to prop it up.

Like the recession inducing economic mess left by the Bush administration? Seems like every government is leaving the next with an "economic mess" these days, I wonder what Trump will leave his successors? Besides billions of tonnes of carbon emissions that is.

Completely off-topic, so I won't bother addressing it.

Not at the expense of what may well prove to be a greater threat than we've ever faced. In fact, the World Economic Forum have themselves concluded climate change disaster to be the the biggest existing threat to the global economy. Short-sightedness is not a good policy in any contexts, I thought a balanced approach was need of the hour?

Do you think the catastrophic damage climate change is predicted to be less expensive? It could cost us trillions of dollars darling. Environmentalist initiatives are cheap change in comparison.

It's not a question of delaying the inevitable, its a question of preventing it from getting worse and innovating solutions to make things better.

Uh-huh, the media needn't interpret his intentions when he's made them plainly clearly, every policy I've referred to has come from his own mouth, some examples:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-epa-dept-of-education
https://www.bna.com/trump-says-plan-n57982082131/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36401174

"The environment will be fine?" - doesn't sound particularly eco-friendly to me.

Most worryingly now as President-elect, Trump has expressed his intentions to slash funding to NASA's (vital) climate research, tell me, how are we supposed to find out more about the realities of global warming without doing the science?

Altogether you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy your special insights into what Trump "really" thinks. "Liberal propaganda" non-withstanding.

Continued from above.

The mainstream media aren't in control of his Twitter account either:

http://i.imgur.com/uoQwSWu.png

Sorry.

I'd tell them to invest in a more stable future. The US coal industry is failing, and will fail with or without environmentalist restrictions. You talk about boogeyman and yet as far as scape goats are concerned, climate change seems to be the man of the hour here.

If America wants jobs, they should be looking to alternative industries, and preferably greener ones. The demand for power certainly isn't going away.

Pressure is already being put on the coal mining industry to go green, it appears to be buckling under its own weight. Time to phase it out, not lie to Americans with nonsense promises of "millions of high paying jobs" - it's not going to happen.

Well we hardly have a choice now do we, the wise American electorate have decided on all our fates.

As far as climate change is concerned, the Obama's administration reduced CO2 emissions by billions of tonnes, Trump's administration is predicted to have that steadily increasing again.

Whatever Trump understands it doesn't appear to be how to balance economic interests against the realities of global warming, that much is quite apparent.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Alien refugees, in my white community?

Coming for you bro.

But but.. I Brexited!

Originally posted by Beniboybling
But but.. I Brexited!

Not yet. You guys gotta get a move on.

Originally posted by Surtur
A person isn't credible if they disbelieve in things that have been proven.

Circular logic.



Oh, I assure you there are quite a few.



Fungi evolve. Actually, if you replaced "evolution" with "global warming" this sentence would make more sense.



--and that's because the vast majority of experts on the subject agree that's where the overwhelming evidence points.




Dunno. Do you think you should stop carrying yourself in a way that suggests there is no way you're wrong about evolution?

I mean, surely if there wasn't a valid argument for creationism, it wouldn't be such a divisive issue. Right?

I never said that being a contested issue means there is merit. I'm simply saying with the way people carry themselves, I hope there isn't an actual credible argument against man made climate change.

Note I say credible. I haven't, so far, heard any credible arguments coming from creationists.

But anyways, to avoid any further confusion, in a nut shell I am saying people should not act sure of something unless they are sure of something. Your responses indicate to me they are indeed sure, which is essentially what I wanted to know.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said that being a contested issue means there is merit.

Originally posted by Surtur
But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence?

Whoops.



Everything I've seen points that way, yeah.

Asking how there is so much controversy over it doesn't actually mean I was saying controversy automatically means there is merit.

It was a question, not a statement.

Very good insights on the issue:

aZNu3GRI3H4

Originally posted by Stigma
Very good insights on the issue:

aZNu3GRI3H4



This is what worries me. Within 20 friggin seconds he already points out how widely talked about aspects of climate change have been debunked.

Disturbs me that if man made climate change is legit anyone would still cling to debunked ideas they feel proves it, does harm to legit climate change arguments.