It should be obvious by now that humans are notoriously bad at predicting large, systemic shifts and trends.
Boilerplate denialist handwaiving.
Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
Every extinction event in history (before man started hunting species to extinction) arose from the climate changing too fast for life to adapt to it. You may have dreams of planting wheat in Antarctica and bananas in Siberia, which would be cool if that climate change took place over a few million years. Change the climate that fast over a thousand years, and you're going to have mass die-offs of plants and animals. Animals that will include a few hundred million humans, at least.
No. You do not do nothing. You adapt. Rather than accept the hubris that says the entire energy distribution of the planet is under complete human control, and even if it were there is no way you can control enough humans to a fine enough degree to steer it, you accept that change for whatever reason is happening and adapt.
Like how you just adapted yourself into a straw man!
If you cannot adapt, you die. Now there's a fine old idea with only a few radical right wing non-thinkers disputing it. Adapt or die.
Give us an update if its your ass that's dying for reasons outside your control, due to the actions of self-centered denialists.
Remembering back to the days of Al Gore... he made it political.
So was giving women the right to vote and keeping companies like DuPont from dumping toxic waste into your drinking supply. WYP.
I suspect he introduced us to the carbon tax idea so that he could get in on the ground floor and make millions.
Yes, a conservative, market-based approach to mitigating climate change. Yet conservatives who believe in market solutions for everything despise Al Gore, for some reason.
Anytime we think there is a mechanistic explanation for events in a complex system -- such as the Earth and its biosphere is -- we're probably wrong.
Definitely denialist handwaving. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is being driven by humans, why insult your own intelligence with the "gosh this is toooo hard to understand!" shtick.
As for me, I'd rather trust a trader's ability to observe patterns than the climate researcher's because the shirt on back of the former literally depends on that ability.
Traders who make money on fees whether the market goes up or down. A market driven by human psychology, something climate DGAF about.
Or he did hear that being taught, just like I did in the late 70s and heard the exact same thing being taught - even in the Weekly Reader (those under 40 or so probably have no clue what that even is).
You weren't taught any such thing unless your teacher was a quack making shit up.
I lived thru that time, and remember the global cooling new ice age hysteria clearly.
You mean you remember reading articles in news magazines, not scientific studies. We'll be charitable and go with "badly mistaken". But as many times as this canard has been debunked it's probably "flatly dishonest".
You might want to let Colin Kaepernick know that. He seems to think otherwise.
You seem to be a tool, as he's not making any such claim. What he is claiming is that owners are engaging in collusion to deny him a job, deliberately passing him over for inferior quarterbacks.
Speaking of the Constitution, though, it's the government paying the NFL for players to be on the field during the National Jingoism, making it a free speech issue as well.
Please stop confusing liberals with progressives. Progressives are the ones who have gone off the deep end with that shit, and consider liberals to also be alt-right nazis wherever liberals stand up against their insanity.
Whatever it is you're smoking, did you bring enough for everyone? It's liberals, who are right-wing toolbags, who swing the identity politics club with abandon in order to not deal with the fact that their leaders are frequently more extreme than the worst Republicans they can name. Shit like passing NAFTA and ending welfare (Clinton) starting wars without Congressional authorization and repealing habeas corpus (Obama).
The real problem I see with subsidies like this is that they tend to artificially raise the price of the product being subsidized. This happens with college tuition, agricultural produce, and even happened with low end fuel-efficient cars during the cash for clunkers program.
Only until supply catches up with demand. If ever-increasing tuition rates had anything to do with 'easy student loan' money, then more colleges would be created to compete for those dollars, forcing prices back down. Prices have never gone down.
We burn carbon in order to do useful things. We measure the usefulness of things with money. "Waste" means burning carbon without doing something useful.
What a pile of entitled assholery. Most of the "useful" things you wank on about are either 1) burning over a trillion a year on the imperial budget or 2) banks passing other people's money back and forth, claiming fees along the way.
Neither of those things are in any way useful to the human race.
If cost alone makes smug-powered wind and solar so cheap, how come we are not building them everywhere?
Uh, we are.
How come other forms of power have to pick up the slack?
Uh, because hundreds of billions have been thrown to subsidize coal and nuclear power, which have a decades-long head start on wind and solar power.
We can't do pumped storage everywhere
Of course you can. Even in desert environments, simply pair an underground storage tank with a water tower. Do you take this one-size-must-fit-all approach to nuclear power plants, which cannot be built in areas prone to tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes?
You are suggesting wind and solar at the scale required to equate to 50 nuclear plants in a country with limited real estate like Japan?
If only Japan were near the ring of fire and could tap into geothermal energy. If only Japan were a nation with a large amount of coastline and able to easily tap into on and offshore wind energy a la Scotland.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes 30 of them to consume the same amount of resources that you do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...
It takes 30 people in developing countries to consume the same amount of resources as you do, BigChigger.
The problem isn't their overpopulation. It's your overconsumption.
Boilerplate denialist handwaiving.
Every extinction event in history (before man started hunting species to extinction) arose from the climate changing too fast for life to adapt to it. You may have dreams of planting wheat in Antarctica and bananas in Siberia, which would be cool if that climate change took place over a few million years. Change the climate that fast over a thousand years, and you're going to have mass die-offs of plants and animals. Animals that will include a few hundred million humans, at least.
Like how you just adapted yourself into a straw man!
Give us an update if its your ass that's dying for reasons outside your control, due to the actions of self-centered denialists.
So was giving women the right to vote and keeping companies like DuPont from dumping toxic waste into your drinking supply. WYP.
Yes, a conservative, market-based approach to mitigating climate change. Yet conservatives who believe in market solutions for everything despise Al Gore, for some reason.
Okay and which ones would those be. The climate cooling myth doesn't count for obvious reasons.
https://skepticalscience.com/i...
His point is an uncited tautology.
"Scientists pull random theories out of their butts and decades later pick and choose the ones that were correct" isn't how science actually works.
Definitely denialist handwaving. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is being driven by humans, why insult your own intelligence with the "gosh this is toooo hard to understand!" shtick.
Traders who make money on fees whether the market goes up or down. A market driven by human psychology, something climate DGAF about.
That's not even quarter-assed denialism. Smoked many cigarettes rolled in asbestos papers lately to stick it to those librul scientists?
And Popular Mechanics had articles on how everyone would have their own personal airplanes. Whoop de fucking do.
https://skepticalscience.com/i...
You weren't taught any such thing unless your teacher was a quack making shit up.
https://skepticalscience.com/i...
This will help you more, sophist.
https://skepticalscience.com/i...
You mean you remember reading articles in news magazines, not scientific studies. We'll be charitable and go with "badly mistaken". But as many times as this canard has been debunked it's probably "flatly dishonest".
Do you also think that doctors talk about the danger posed by measles without ever saying what can be done about it?
Old news:
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/...
Says the dumbfuck using the word "edgy" in two replies. Do you own a mirror?
Willful dumbfuckery. The military is directly paying the NFL for anthem celebrations as a recruitment ad - which is straight up jingoism.
He wants to play ball, dumbass.
When the government is paying for it? Of course it is - dumbass.
You seem to be a tool, as he's not making any such claim. What he is claiming is that owners are engaging in collusion to deny him a job, deliberately passing him over for inferior quarterbacks.
Speaking of the Constitution, though, it's the government paying the NFL for players to be on the field during the National Jingoism, making it a free speech issue as well.
But they're being paid by the government for players to be on the field for the National Jingoism, so it is a free speech issue.
Whatever it is you're smoking, did you bring enough for everyone? It's liberals, who are right-wing toolbags, who swing the identity politics club with abandon in order to not deal with the fact that their leaders are frequently more extreme than the worst Republicans they can name. Shit like passing NAFTA and ending welfare (Clinton) starting wars without Congressional authorization and repealing habeas corpus (Obama).
Another kind of right winger.
By taking a knee on the sideline? That's only "disruptive" if you're a goosestepping fascist.
Players are only out on the field because the government started paying the NFL to do so - which makes it a cut & dried First Amendment issue.
Only until supply catches up with demand. If ever-increasing tuition rates had anything to do with 'easy student loan' money, then more colleges would be created to compete for those dollars, forcing prices back down. Prices have never gone down.
What a pile of entitled assholery. Most of the "useful" things you wank on about are either 1) burning over a trillion a year on the imperial budget or 2) banks passing other people's money back and forth, claiming fees along the way.
Neither of those things are in any way useful to the human race.
Uh, we are.
Uh, because hundreds of billions have been thrown to subsidize coal and nuclear power, which have a decades-long head start on wind and solar power.
Of course you can. Even in desert environments, simply pair an underground storage tank with a water tower. Do you take this one-size-must-fit-all approach to nuclear power plants, which cannot be built in areas prone to tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes?
If only Japan were near the ring of fire and could tap into geothermal energy. If only Japan were a nation with a large amount of coastline and able to easily tap into on and offshore wind energy a la Scotland.
If only.