Not sure what kind of value we can get from this kind of hallucinogen. We have known about magic mushrooms since prehistoric times, and there was major experimentation with them in the 60s, but nothing good came of it, and aside from synesthesia and what amounts to waking dreams that you can't get out of, these things aren't useful to humanity in any real way.
Probably one of the reasons that it took from 1968 to 2017 for someone to figure out how to synthesize the drug.
Or, alternatively, some people have biology susceptible to substance abuse (or are trying to self medicate) and start with things that legally give them minor mood alteration (coffee, sugar, chocolate, energy drinks, etc.) and eventually graduate to illicit drugs?
Except that vision damage, short of catching a high watt density laser full on, takes a few hours to onset, but once you are blinded, that is it you are never going to see again. It is kind of like nuclear radiation. Once you know you are being injured, you are already screwed...
Eclipses are not that big a deal, just go outside, see it dark in the middle of the day and then check out the pictures posted online of the eclipse. Eyesight is our most critical of the 5 senses, with hearing being next most critical. Loss of eyesight is a debilitating problem for humans.
The trick is for all the legit retailers to file a class action against Amazon in California. It is Amazon's own fault for letting in a massive number of no name knockoff vendors from China (or same with a single front person in the US forwarding their cheap knockoff junk with zero vetting).
Amazon should eat every penny of the losses because they are the ones that polluted their marketplace, not the legit vendors. I hate how Amazon has become a third world flea market in a lot of ways. I would much rather pay higher prices for legit, high quality products.
Please feel free to discredit the pre-industrial revolution scientists who created the data that I linked to, if you have an actual evidence to back them up. If CO2 levels were measured between 250 and 550PPM at that time, and we see the same levels today (which we do) then you cannot rationally argue that CO2 levels are rising because of human industrialization. Sorry.
So lets take the $6,000,000,000 we piss away each year on AGW research and pipe water from rivers to the biggest deserts on the planet and start terraforming them, first with more desert species and eventually more biodense species of plants. Lets have a true green initiative for everyone who lives in the desert or high desert and start paying them to grow trees, grass and other plants. We could probably capture all of the CO2 we are generating within a few decades. Let me know how the AGW industry likes that idea.
You might what to stop making a fool out of yourself and read the facts about pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists and how they stack up with current CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
The US has just had 8 years of "green jobs" which turned out to be BS. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... AGW mitigation work is the same as bureaucracy, not only does it waste the life energy of the worker trying to solve the wrong problem, it places an unnecessary burden on the rest of us.
We already have clean air and clean water, and those were as you say valuable improvements, but that is not the topic at hand. Trying to mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere is like removing Nitrogen from the atmosphere, there is no benefit because there is no problem. CO2 levels measured scientifically pre-industrial revolution are the same as today: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
The expected sea level rise is somewhere between 6 inches and 2 feet IF warming continues. The wildest projections have it at 6 feet. That is not millions of people displaced. In the modern world, we will just build seawalls, in the third world, people will just move, as this change is not like a tidal wave, it is gradual. There is a lot of evidence that sea levels have been rising for millennia: http://thechive.com/2016/11/03... Those people didn't have gills, they built on dry land and as the sea levels rose, they moved and the stuff they didn't take went under, that's just historical fact and a part of our world.
Or to further your analogy, I have 20 years experience in applied Thermodynamics and a PhD in the field. The science is far from settled. I have done a lot of research on the topic and there is good, hard science that CO2 levels are not rising from historic, pre-industrial levels: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Since that is the main argument of AGW, I (and a lot of other scientists) are saying that there is only one hole, from natural causes not yet well understood, and rather than throwing our engine overboard, which will do nothing but cost us our engine, we should use our scientific knowledge and our engineering skills to wall/seal off the affected parts of the ship, pump the water out and patch the hole from the outside. Some people will have their rooms flooded, but that's tough shit, at least the ship doesn't go down and we can relocate the affected people or reclaim those rooms if we want (we are only talking about between 6 inches and 6 feet of sea level rise... the 1000% margin of error tells you just how inexact climate "science" really is, if it is to be believed at all, remember, these guys can't predict if it will rain a week from today with any reasonable accuracy.)
Once we remove the AGW facet of global warming, it becomes a much simpler engineering problem to solve by mitigation until the earth enters its next cooling phase. And you also remove the moralistic virtue signaling BS the SJW have been swinging around for the last 20 years.
"That the Earth will warm is as certain as sunrise, and that this CO2-induced warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity is similarly not in dispute. If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with and we will find you the appropriate citations."
Is that why global temperatures change was essentially flat between 1998 and 2013 and NOAA had to falsify data to make it look otherwise? https://science.house.gov/news...
What is settled science is that the atmosphere is and always has been IR opaque in the frequency bands that CO2 blocks. Adding more or removing 100PPM does not change that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit and speculation, in that order.
CO2 already blocks 100% (it is opaque) in the bands of IR that it interferes with at 440PPM (and down below 100PPM) which is below the historical scientifically measured CO2 levels of 250-550PPM pre-industrial revolution... http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... It has always blocked 100% of IR radiation in those bands (but IR outside those bands can still escape). Care to try again?
AGW is on the ropes, the drip drip drip of facts is slowly tearing it apart. Global warming happens, but evidence for AGW simply doesn't exist. The fact that you think it does just highlights the fact that you are clueless, or you worship "science" instead of practicing it.
So I agree, no more fair and balanced hearing of both sides. We know that the AGW "climate scientists" lied their asses off to "prove" AGW. Defund all AGW research, development, mandates, etc. and anything related to AGW. If it is really a thing, the SJW can fund it out of their own pockets and we will see how long that lasts.
In general I also browse at higher levels, but I also add modifiers to other intelligent slashdoters that I come across so that when reasonable posts are made and get immediately nuked by some jackass SJW, I can see them and upmod them back. There are a lot of butt hurt little fascist libtards looking to dish out some "justice" to anyone who doesn't conform to their narrative, now that they have completely lost their shit over the last election.
Feel free to check out all of the detailed, sourced replies that I have made to other non-troll posts on this thread and tell me again how wrong my original post was and how it was a troll exactly. This is the same shit that just got that guy fired over at Google. Fascist little SJW can't tolerate opposition because they don't have the facts on their side, so they must silence all outside their groupthink.
I got down modded by trolls who masquerade as actual humans. I have excellent karma, regardless of a few shitstorms like this caused by ignorant SJW libtards who can't formulate a coherent response due to excessive froth in their mouths so they just downmod instead. Feel free to check out my replies to other thoughtful humans who posted to this thread. You might learn something beyond your echo chamber.
I'm saying if you find a fire burning the forest, you can't assume that it was man made. I don't exclude the possibility, but the AGW "climate scientists" have yet to show anyone real proof that the 0.1C rise in the last 17 years was man caused or indicative of a coming apocalypse. If it wasn't, we are pissing away $7,000,000,000 a year in the US alone that could be better spent on health care for the poor, job training for the unemployed (literally just about anything). And that doesn't even consider all of the private sector spending that could be better spent elsewhere...
AGW crowd: "CO2 levels are increasing" Nope, they lied and the cat is out of the bag. They cherry picked the scientific measurements made pre-industrial revolution to fit their narraive instead of including all the data, which agrees well with what we see today regarding CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW crowd: "CO2 blocks IR from escaping, more is bad!" Nope, CO2 in the atmosphere already blocks 100% of the IR in the bands that it reflects IR and the 100% reflection happens well below 100PPM (current levels are maybe 440PPM with historic SCIENTIFIC pre-industrial measurements between 250-550PPM)...
AGW crowd: "All scientists believe in AGW!" Nope, that lie was based on a survey of 160 climate scientists, of which 77 responded. That is hardly all scientists. http://www.nationalreview.com/...
AGW crowd: "You are evil and you want everyone to drown from sea level rise!" Nope, sea levels are projected to rise between 0.5 feet and 6 feet. It is trivial for us to build 20 ft sea walls, and they could already be built around all endangered, inhabited coastline for what we have spent on AGW research and development in the last 5 years in the US alone ($35,000,000,000). If global warming really will continue as AGW nuts project and they really were concerned, then they should encourage the redirection of their funding to start building the sea walls.... but it is not real, it is just a cash cow for the AGW green industries and research grant industry.
True, but conversely, we have already dealt with nearly all real pollution in the US (we have clean air and clean water and real laws to protect against real pollution), and now we are faced with some minor temperature fluctuations; about 0.1C in the last 17 years) http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i... and the radical AWG crowd are trying to convince us to spend massive amounts of money on ineffective mitigation of a natural phenomenon, go back to the stone age and live in mud huts like the third world, or kill ourselves to "save the planet"...
Alternatively, the rational person asks first why we should spend 20% of our GDP on ineffective mitigation when AGW based on rising CO2 levels is demonstrably false (historical SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution) are on par with what we see today http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... and global warming is much more easily, economically and effectively countered with technology (climate control systems, sea walls, better building designs, etc.)
The earth is a massive sandbox, and we occupy only 10% of the land mass with everything that we do (farming, dwellings, dwellings, etc.) The rest is wild. Land only makes up 30% of the total area. All the humans on the planet could fit inside the county of Jacksonville, Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If you are crowded where you are, you should move.
Regardless of the SJW AGW crusaders here on slashdot, AGW is on the ropes in the collective consciousness of society because they have been wrong far too often and been caught violating scientific methods and ethics (faking and cherry picking data, etc.) to be taken seriously anymore. The era of "feeling" that something is right and virtue signaling is in it's death throes, welcome to a new age of enlightenment.
Sorry, you have been lied to. CO2 levels have been the same since we started to scientifically measure them pre-industrial revolution. The AGW liars cherry picked the data to support their lie, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
CO2 levels have been flat since we have been scientifically measuring the atmospheric gas (within the ranges that have been observed pre-industrial revolution). The AGW climate scientists have lied to you by cherry picking historical values to fit their agenda. The circled data in the first graph are the values that the AGW cherry picked as historical CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Beyond that, global CO2 levels are a lie. "Global" CO2 levels are actually just a single measurement station in Hawaii where levels can CHANGE 600PPM in a single day.
Land use 200 years ago and back was literally less than 1% of the planet's land mass surface area, and that doesn't even factor in that 95% plus of plant mass on the planet is in the ocean. So you are talking about 1% of at best 5% or 0.05% impact on plant mass, assuming other plants didn't grow 0.1% more due to the ever so slightly greater availability of CO2, totally wiping out any effect.
It makes a huge difference. If global warming is a natural phenomena, all the "green" solutions are wrong, and a huge, massive mistake and we should immediately stop pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars globally on "green" projects, products, etc. and start doing what is most economical, efficient and safe for humanity (Teraforming, local climate control, backup power generation, inherently human safe buildings, etc.)
There have always been un-livable regions of the world, and those regions have grown/shrunk/started/stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We used to call them deserts and this is nothing new. If it is too inhospitable where you live, move.
Realize that your "scientific" argument is a comic strip, regardless of how popular on slashdot. Also note that everything before around 1850 is a dotted line because it is not scientific evidence, but pull it out of your ass guesswork based on secondary or even tertiary factors with a lot of built in assumptions. An educated guess by a PhD is still a guess.
Beyond the problems above, global temperature is a myth as you think of it. Temperature on the planet varies dramatically from the equator to the poles, day and night, season to season, elevation, ocean depth, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, vegetation type, rainfall levels, regional geography, etc. Any of those factors plus others can cause the local temperature to vary 20-40C or more. Global temperature is an estimate based on fallible computer models that try to compensate and calculate using many local measurements and a bunch of fudge factors (numbers pulled out of someone's ass). Satellite measurements are also factored in to this model, but again, at a single site, temperatures can swing 20C in a single day night cycle, and easily double that from season to season. However, somehow we are supposed to believe them when they assure us that the planet has warmed 0.1C in the last 17 years (well within the margin of error, which has never been well defined, let alone validated for their global temperature model). http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i...
Pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten... The circles are the values cherry picked by "climate scientists" to support their AGW farce.
You are factually incorrect that CO2 levels are higher today than they were pre-industrial revolution. The ONLY reason that CO2 levels fit nicely into the predicted and observed temperature changes is because the data has been cherry picked to support the hypothesis, which is flat out bad science. I failed more than one student for cherry picking data like this. I am sorry, but you have been mislead. It might be worth you while to listen to a real scientist and update your knowledge and undo some of the brainwashing.
CO2 is plant food. Many scientists, myself included, believe there is strong evidence that plant growth is limited by CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are limited by plant growth (mostly plants in the ocean, but on land as well to a lesser degree) in a self balancing relationship (living and dead organic mater captures something like 99% of carbon on the planet). CO2 is a critical component for life on earth.
AGW nuts point to Venus as a cautionary tale of greenhouse effects, but FFS Venus atmosphere is like 90% CO2. CO2 in earths atmosphere is around 400PPM or 0.04% or 1/2,500 the concentration on Venus (not to mention the higher radiative intensity of the sun on Venus due to being closer. Try asking a climate "scientist" what the temperature of the planet should be right now without their supposed AGW and watch them flop around with no evidence or science. http://insider.foxnews.com/201... How can you say AGW is a real thing if you don't know where the baseline should be?
The greenhouse effect is basic science, but only one small part of the radiation equation, which is the basic physics that drives the radiative losses of the planet into space. CO2 already blocks 100% of the IR bands where it comes into play, so adding more CO2 has no demonstrable effect on global warming. Additionally CO2 only blocks small bands of IR, not the entire spectrum and blocks less radiation losses than cloud cover (FYI).
You give a bunch of people with no background in hard science a 5th grade level explanation of greenhouse gasses and suddenly they think they have all the answers. You mix in some good old fashioned virtue signaling and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...
The ice age CO2 levels (i.e. not directly measured) contain assumptions (AKA educated guesses or SWAGs). Those assumptions can easily be wrong and there is no science to support those assumptions, they are just out there, yet to be proven or disproved. Thus, at best they are very weak and speculative evidence of historic CO2 levels.
Our best evidence for or against AGW is direct measurements made by real scientists before the industrial revolution. If AGW is real, and CO2 is the culprit, then CO2 must substantially rise from pre industrial revolution levels. However, if you look at the historical and non-smoothed data, CO2 levels haven't risen from what we observed pre-industrial revolution. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten...
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what kind of value we can get from this kind of hallucinogen. We have known about magic mushrooms since prehistoric times, and there was major experimentation with them in the 60s, but nothing good came of it, and aside from synesthesia and what amounts to waking dreams that you can't get out of, these things aren't useful to humanity in any real way.
Probably one of the reasons that it took from 1968 to 2017 for someone to figure out how to synthesize the drug.
Or, alternatively, some people have biology susceptible to substance abuse (or are trying to self medicate) and start with things that legally give them minor mood alteration (coffee, sugar, chocolate, energy drinks, etc.) and eventually graduate to illicit drugs?
Except that vision damage, short of catching a high watt density laser full on, takes a few hours to onset, but once you are blinded, that is it you are never going to see again. It is kind of like nuclear radiation. Once you know you are being injured, you are already screwed...
Eclipses are not that big a deal, just go outside, see it dark in the middle of the day and then check out the pictures posted online of the eclipse. Eyesight is our most critical of the 5 senses, with hearing being next most critical. Loss of eyesight is a debilitating problem for humans.
The trick is for all the legit retailers to file a class action against Amazon in California. It is Amazon's own fault for letting in a massive number of no name knockoff vendors from China (or same with a single front person in the US forwarding their cheap knockoff junk with zero vetting).
Amazon should eat every penny of the losses because they are the ones that polluted their marketplace, not the legit vendors. I hate how Amazon has become a third world flea market in a lot of ways. I would much rather pay higher prices for legit, high quality products.
Please feel free to discredit the pre-industrial revolution scientists who created the data that I linked to, if you have an actual evidence to back them up. If CO2 levels were measured between 250 and 550PPM at that time, and we see the same levels today (which we do) then you cannot rationally argue that CO2 levels are rising because of human industrialization. Sorry.
So lets take the $6,000,000,000 we piss away each year on AGW research and pipe water from rivers to the biggest deserts on the planet and start terraforming them, first with more desert species and eventually more biodense species of plants. Lets have a true green initiative for everyone who lives in the desert or high desert and start paying them to grow trees, grass and other plants. We could probably capture all of the CO2 we are generating within a few decades. Let me know how the AGW industry likes that idea.
You might what to stop making a fool out of yourself and read the facts about pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists and how they stack up with current CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
The US has just had 8 years of "green jobs" which turned out to be BS. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... AGW mitigation work is the same as bureaucracy, not only does it waste the life energy of the worker trying to solve the wrong problem, it places an unnecessary burden on the rest of us.
We already have clean air and clean water, and those were as you say valuable improvements, but that is not the topic at hand. Trying to mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere is like removing Nitrogen from the atmosphere, there is no benefit because there is no problem. CO2 levels measured scientifically pre-industrial revolution are the same as today: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
The expected sea level rise is somewhere between 6 inches and 2 feet IF warming continues. The wildest projections have it at 6 feet. That is not millions of people displaced. In the modern world, we will just build seawalls, in the third world, people will just move, as this change is not like a tidal wave, it is gradual. There is a lot of evidence that sea levels have been rising for millennia: http://thechive.com/2016/11/03... Those people didn't have gills, they built on dry land and as the sea levels rose, they moved and the stuff they didn't take went under, that's just historical fact and a part of our world.
Or to further your analogy, I have 20 years experience in applied Thermodynamics and a PhD in the field. The science is far from settled. I have done a lot of research on the topic and there is good, hard science that CO2 levels are not rising from historic, pre-industrial levels: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Since that is the main argument of AGW, I (and a lot of other scientists) are saying that there is only one hole, from natural causes not yet well understood, and rather than throwing our engine overboard, which will do nothing but cost us our engine, we should use our scientific knowledge and our engineering skills to wall/seal off the affected parts of the ship, pump the water out and patch the hole from the outside. Some people will have their rooms flooded, but that's tough shit, at least the ship doesn't go down and we can relocate the affected people or reclaim those rooms if we want (we are only talking about between 6 inches and 6 feet of sea level rise... the 1000% margin of error tells you just how inexact climate "science" really is, if it is to be believed at all, remember, these guys can't predict if it will rain a week from today with any reasonable accuracy.)
Once we remove the AGW facet of global warming, it becomes a much simpler engineering problem to solve by mitigation until the earth enters its next cooling phase. And you also remove the moralistic virtue signaling BS the SJW have been swinging around for the last 20 years.
"That the Earth will warm is as certain as sunrise, and that this CO2-induced warming is overwhelmingly caused by human activity is similarly not in dispute. If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with and we will find you the appropriate citations."
Is that why global temperatures change was essentially flat between 1998 and 2013 and NOAA had to falsify data to make it look otherwise? https://science.house.gov/news...
What is settled science is that the atmosphere is and always has been IR opaque in the frequency bands that CO2 blocks. Adding more or removing 100PPM does not change that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit and speculation, in that order.
CO2 already blocks 100% (it is opaque) in the bands of IR that it interferes with at 440PPM (and down below 100PPM) which is below the historical scientifically measured CO2 levels of 250-550PPM pre-industrial revolution... http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... It has always blocked 100% of IR radiation in those bands (but IR outside those bands can still escape). Care to try again?
Someone has no idea what they are talking about, that is for sure...
AGW "scientists" cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW fraudsters falsified data to support their AGW lie: https://science.house.gov/news...
AGW is on the ropes, the drip drip drip of facts is slowly tearing it apart. Global warming happens, but evidence for AGW simply doesn't exist. The fact that you think it does just highlights the fact that you are clueless, or you worship "science" instead of practicing it.
Thank you
And there are the SJW mod points. I get blasted to -1 and you have +4 for for your facist little screed. Your display name is well suited.
Meanwhile AGW has cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW fraudsters have falsified data to support their lies: https://science.house.gov/news...
So I agree, no more fair and balanced hearing of both sides. We know that the AGW "climate scientists" lied their asses off to "prove" AGW. Defund all AGW research, development, mandates, etc. and anything related to AGW. If it is really a thing, the SJW can fund it out of their own pockets and we will see how long that lasts.
In general I also browse at higher levels, but I also add modifiers to other intelligent slashdoters that I come across so that when reasonable posts are made and get immediately nuked by some jackass SJW, I can see them and upmod them back. There are a lot of butt hurt little fascist libtards looking to dish out some "justice" to anyone who doesn't conform to their narrative, now that they have completely lost their shit over the last election.
Feel free to check out all of the detailed, sourced replies that I have made to other non-troll posts on this thread and tell me again how wrong my original post was and how it was a troll exactly. This is the same shit that just got that guy fired over at Google. Fascist little SJW can't tolerate opposition because they don't have the facts on their side, so they must silence all outside their groupthink.
I got down modded by trolls who masquerade as actual humans. I have excellent karma, regardless of a few shitstorms like this caused by ignorant SJW libtards who can't formulate a coherent response due to excessive froth in their mouths so they just downmod instead. Feel free to check out my replies to other thoughtful humans who posted to this thread. You might learn something beyond your echo chamber.
I'm saying if you find a fire burning the forest, you can't assume that it was man made. I don't exclude the possibility, but the AGW "climate scientists" have yet to show anyone real proof that the 0.1C rise in the last 17 years was man caused or indicative of a coming apocalypse. If it wasn't, we are pissing away $7,000,000,000 a year in the US alone that could be better spent on health care for the poor, job training for the unemployed (literally just about anything). And that doesn't even consider all of the private sector spending that could be better spent elsewhere...
AGW crowd: "CO2 levels are increasing" Nope, they lied and the cat is out of the bag. They cherry picked the scientific measurements made pre-industrial revolution to fit their narraive instead of including all the data, which agrees well with what we see today regarding CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW crowd: "CO2 blocks IR from escaping, more is bad!" Nope, CO2 in the atmosphere already blocks 100% of the IR in the bands that it reflects IR and the 100% reflection happens well below 100PPM (current levels are maybe 440PPM with historic SCIENTIFIC pre-industrial measurements between 250-550PPM)...
AGW crowd: "All scientists believe in AGW!" Nope, that lie was based on a survey of 160 climate scientists, of which 77 responded. That is hardly all scientists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
AGW crowd: "You are evil and you want everyone to drown from sea level rise!" Nope, sea levels are projected to rise between 0.5 feet and 6 feet. It is trivial for us to build 20 ft sea walls, and they could already be built around all endangered, inhabited coastline for what we have spent on AGW research and development in the last 5 years in the US alone ($35,000,000,000). If global warming really will continue as AGW nuts project and they really were concerned, then they should encourage the redirection of their funding to start building the sea walls.... but it is not real, it is just a cash cow for the AGW green industries and research grant industry.
AGW crowd: "But, but, it feel AGW is real, and I'm terrified!" The rest of society: STFU already http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
True, but conversely, we have already dealt with nearly all real pollution in the US (we have clean air and clean water and real laws to protect against real pollution), and now we are faced with some minor temperature fluctuations; about 0.1C in the last 17 years) http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i... and the radical AWG crowd are trying to convince us to spend massive amounts of money on ineffective mitigation of a natural phenomenon, go back to the stone age and live in mud huts like the third world, or kill ourselves to "save the planet"...
Alternatively, the rational person asks first why we should spend 20% of our GDP on ineffective mitigation when AGW based on rising CO2 levels is demonstrably false (historical SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution) are on par with what we see today http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... and global warming is much more easily, economically and effectively countered with technology (climate control systems, sea walls, better building designs, etc.)
The earth is a massive sandbox, and we occupy only 10% of the land mass with everything that we do (farming, dwellings, dwellings, etc.) The rest is wild. Land only makes up 30% of the total area. All the humans on the planet could fit inside the county of Jacksonville, Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If you are crowded where you are, you should move.
Regardless of the SJW AGW crusaders here on slashdot, AGW is on the ropes in the collective consciousness of society because they have been wrong far too often and been caught violating scientific methods and ethics (faking and cherry picking data, etc.) to be taken seriously anymore. The era of "feeling" that something is right and virtue signaling is in it's death throes, welcome to a new age of enlightenment.
Sorry, you have been lied to. CO2 levels have been the same since we started to scientifically measure them pre-industrial revolution. The AGW liars cherry picked the data to support their lie, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
CO2 levels have been flat since we have been scientifically measuring the atmospheric gas (within the ranges that have been observed pre-industrial revolution). The AGW climate scientists have lied to you by cherry picking historical values to fit their agenda. The circled data in the first graph are the values that the AGW cherry picked as historical CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Beyond that, global CO2 levels are a lie. "Global" CO2 levels are actually just a single measurement station in Hawaii where levels can CHANGE 600PPM in a single day.
Land use 200 years ago and back was literally less than 1% of the planet's land mass surface area, and that doesn't even factor in that 95% plus of plant mass on the planet is in the ocean. So you are talking about 1% of at best 5% or 0.05% impact on plant mass, assuming other plants didn't grow 0.1% more due to the ever so slightly greater availability of CO2, totally wiping out any effect.
It makes a huge difference. If global warming is a natural phenomena, all the "green" solutions are wrong, and a huge, massive mistake and we should immediately stop pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars globally on "green" projects, products, etc. and start doing what is most economical, efficient and safe for humanity (Teraforming, local climate control, backup power generation, inherently human safe buildings, etc.)
There have always been un-livable regions of the world, and those regions have grown/shrunk/started/stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We used to call them deserts and this is nothing new. If it is too inhospitable where you live, move.
Because being wrong first is a lot harder to undo because that is what typically gets the widest distribution.
Password requirements specifically waste thousands of man hours per month (at least) and the shitty ones also make us a lot less safe.
Realize that your "scientific" argument is a comic strip, regardless of how popular on slashdot. Also note that everything before around 1850 is a dotted line because it is not scientific evidence, but pull it out of your ass guesswork based on secondary or even tertiary factors with a lot of built in assumptions. An educated guess by a PhD is still a guess.
Beyond the problems above, global temperature is a myth as you think of it. Temperature on the planet varies dramatically from the equator to the poles, day and night, season to season, elevation, ocean depth, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, vegetation type, rainfall levels, regional geography, etc. Any of those factors plus others can cause the local temperature to vary 20-40C or more. Global temperature is an estimate based on fallible computer models that try to compensate and calculate using many local measurements and a bunch of fudge factors (numbers pulled out of someone's ass). Satellite measurements are also factored in to this model, but again, at a single site, temperatures can swing 20C in a single day night cycle, and easily double that from season to season. However, somehow we are supposed to believe them when they assure us that the planet has warmed 0.1C in the last 17 years (well within the margin of error, which has never been well defined, let alone validated for their global temperature model). http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i...
Pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten... The circles are the values cherry picked by "climate scientists" to support their AGW farce.
You are factually incorrect that CO2 levels are higher today than they were pre-industrial revolution. The ONLY reason that CO2 levels fit nicely into the predicted and observed temperature changes is because the data has been cherry picked to support the hypothesis, which is flat out bad science. I failed more than one student for cherry picking data like this. I am sorry, but you have been mislead. It might be worth you while to listen to a real scientist and update your knowledge and undo some of the brainwashing.
CO2 is plant food. Many scientists, myself included, believe there is strong evidence that plant growth is limited by CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are limited by plant growth (mostly plants in the ocean, but on land as well to a lesser degree) in a self balancing relationship (living and dead organic mater captures something like 99% of carbon on the planet). CO2 is a critical component for life on earth.
AGW nuts point to Venus as a cautionary tale of greenhouse effects, but FFS Venus atmosphere is like 90% CO2. CO2 in earths atmosphere is around 400PPM or 0.04% or 1/2,500 the concentration on Venus (not to mention the higher radiative intensity of the sun on Venus due to being closer. Try asking a climate "scientist" what the temperature of the planet should be right now without their supposed AGW and watch them flop around with no evidence or science. http://insider.foxnews.com/201... How can you say AGW is a real thing if you don't know where the baseline should be?
The greenhouse effect is basic science, but only one small part of the radiation equation, which is the basic physics that drives the radiative losses of the planet into space. CO2 already blocks 100% of the IR bands where it comes into play, so adding more CO2 has no demonstrable effect on global warming. Additionally CO2 only blocks small bands of IR, not the entire spectrum and blocks less radiation losses than cloud cover (FYI).
You give a bunch of people with no background in hard science a 5th grade level explanation of greenhouse gasses and suddenly they think they have all the answers. You mix in some good old fashioned virtue signaling and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...
The ice age CO2 levels (i.e. not directly measured) contain assumptions (AKA educated guesses or SWAGs). Those assumptions can easily be wrong and there is no science to support those assumptions, they are just out there, yet to be proven or disproved. Thus, at best they are very weak and speculative evidence of historic CO2 levels.
Our best evidence for or against AGW is direct measurements made by real scientists before the industrial revolution. If AGW is real, and CO2 is the culprit, then CO2 must substantially rise from pre industrial revolution levels. However, if you look at the historical and non-smoothed data, CO2 levels haven't risen from what we observed pre-industrial revolution. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten...