What's it like holding a position in complete defiance of reality? Does it make you proud, or do you have any neurons in your amygdala to actually demonstrate that kind of emotion?
It's the new response. I like to call it the "Eat, Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Shall Die" response, wherein the pseudo-skeptics finally concede that we're fucking up global climate, but just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well", or pretend that they care about poor people because "OMG, if we move from oil, just imagine all those poor brown-skinned people that will be harmed!" as if they ever actually cared about vulnerable populations.
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the fossil fuel lobby, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
Indeed. My son-in-law's best friend fights wildfires, and he's expecting a bumper summer, because despite lots of snow in Coastal British Columbia, interior regions have had far less snow, which means there's a high expectation that this is going to be a very bad year for forest fires. The costs of those fires are monumental, and many of those costs are spread fire and wide by insurance companies who will need to jack up premiums across the entire pool to make up for the costs. Insurance rates are literally the canary in the coal mine here, and actuaries have been factoring the numerous effects of climate change for some time now.
No, deserts heat up and expand, and you have hundreds of millions of people trying to move into your back yard, meaning you have to pay a fuck ton more in taxes to support border patrols, armies, all the while you're facing food and water supply problems because your bread basket regions suddenly are less productive, and you become more reliant on foreign sources of agriculture. Meanwhile many other costs, like insurance, start skyrocketing, or many climate-related problems simply aren't covered. Oh yes, and as mentioned elsewhere collapse of many major fisheries, which will lead to huge pressures on coastal populations in many parts of the world where those fisheries are a significant, if not primary source of protein.
Will it happen in your lifetime? If you're under thirty, very likely yes. I'm in my mid-40s, so hopefully I'll miss some of the nastier effects. My kids and grandchldren won't, sadly. But the West is pretty wealthy, so doubtless will pull through relatively alright, though tens of millions of refugees fleeing regions far more vulnerable and far less economically capable of weathering the worst of it, will start showing up, as I mention above, and the costs of keeping them out or integrating them will be huge. Some areas will simply become unlivable by even the hardier animals, and people have this habit of not just sitting down and dying when survival where they are becomes impossible.
What we do know is that Saudi Arabia is spinning off the largest sovereign wealth fund in history. The Saudis know full well that petroleum's reckoning is coming soon, so they're making what they can of it while they can. Like I say elsewhere, in a hundred years I bet large swathes of the Arabian desert will be salt reactors and solar collector arrays. I'll wager they have every intention of being energy titans, whether that be in the form of fossil fuels or solar.
And really, who the hell would want to invest in oil right now? It's clear that OPEC has lost any power to manipulate the price. Every time it looks like supply is going to be restricted, boom the price gets knocked again. Up here in Canada we're watching investment in the oil sands fall simply because production costs are so high, and oil prices so low, that there's little point to even bothering. Shell has sold off 1.3 billion dollars in assets in Canada, so when the big guys begin to act like the end game is coming, you know it isn't far off.
Of course, for the petroeconomies this is a disaster. Whether it's the extreme case like Venezuela, or the more moderate economic contractions of Alberta or North Dakota, a lot of jurisdictions who have basically lived off the oil teat are facing long-term woes.
Others make the case better. I'm just here to call out pseudo-skeptics for what they are; liars and morons. Do you think, say, anti-vaxxers, Creationists and the whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd deserve some sort of continued decent respect. At some point, people who make false and absurd claims should simply be treated like the intellectual midgets they really are.
Or we could, you know, work to reduce CO2 emissions. In the end we'll have to do it anyways, so why not start now? Why just build higher levies and give the middle finger to brown-skinned people unlucky enough to have been born in developing nations?
All that counts is that he provided a link. It could be a link to two gay apes with a bottle of lube, but he provided a link, therefore AGW DISPROVEN!!!
We'll see significant change when every ounce of profit that can be wrung out fossil fuels has been made, or at least close enough to it. And then suddenly you're going to start seeing big solar farms on the Arabian Peninsula and Shell(tm) Wind Farms.
I don't give a crap if you take me seriously. I consider you on the same level as a Creationist or an anti-vaxxer. You're just an idiot who is too infantile and too cowardly and too ideologically driven to see that the laws of physics don't give a fuck about ideology. CO2's properties are not bounded by what you would like CO2 to do when concentrations increase. The laws of physics make it inevitable that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an unavoidable increase in solar radiation being trapped. That's just the way the Universe works, so the fact that it's going to mean either accepting significant climactic changes or changes in the way we produce energy is irrelevant to said laws of physics. The Universe doesn't care that you're upset about greenhouse gas effects. How you feel is irrelevant, and just as irrelevant are vain attempts to create faux critiques of physical laws.
The Salem Hypothesis neatly describes the sort of delusional belief that many engineering types have in their own abilities, and confusing engineering with science. Not that some engineers can't be scientists, but it's not something that just automatically comes with the qualification. The Salem Hypothesis original applied only to Creationism, but seeing as how much of the anti-science rhetoric first developed by Creationists is basically being recycled for the AGW pseudo-skeptic movement, I think it's fair to extend the hypothesis to most engineering types who somehow assume that they have some special insight into fairly complex and specific areas of science.
Because that's not what they're asking for. Even your "unmodified data" statement demonstrates that you're just aping a talking point.
I will fucking repeat, because you appear to be either a fucking moron or out and out malicious. The radiation absorption properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. There is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING, let me repeat that, because you appear to be a fucking idiot, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE FUCKING THING controversial about increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere that will lead to increase trapping of energy,
For fuck's sake, the Arctic was some thirty degrees above normal seasonal temperatures for most of this winter. Most of the last twenty years have been the hottest on record. Increased absorption of CO2 in the world's oceans is changing ocean pH levels. Do you think making spurious demands based largely on bullshit you read on denier sites somehow overrides the laws of physics? Are you really that fucking stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Which has what to do with what? Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Options are offered by various economists, and each and every one is in turned attacked. Yes, there are fruitcakes out there, but so what? The fact remains that if we do not end the fossil fuel economy soon, we're going to fuck things up badly. Enough to kill off humanity? Well no, but it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad, and will eat into the economies of wealthier countries.
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
This seems to be a pretty false analogy, along the lines of the early 20th century attempts to compare atoms to solar systems, when in fact, they have almost nothing in common.
And common sense is utterly meaningless. What counts is the evidence, and as many have pointed out, a lot of physicists have real problems with the "multiple worlds" interpretation of QM and the Uncertainty Principle, not to mention all the extrapolations being pulled out of String Theory, when even String Theory's advocates can't even describe the theory (being that the math is insanely complex).
In other words, there is, as of yet, simply no evidence for the multiverse. The only universe that we can demonstrate exists is the one we live in, and that's all we have evidence for, and it will be a very long time before we have the ability to even test any multiverse hypotheses that are born out of the "many worlds" interpretation or string theory.
Slashdot Mirror
And sex changes! They want everyone to be transexual Communist homosexuals.
Ah look, it's my infantile semi-retarded stalker.
What's it like holding a position in complete defiance of reality? Does it make you proud, or do you have any neurons in your amygdala to actually demonstrate that kind of emotion?
Global temperatures were overall cooler during this period.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
It's the new response. I like to call it the "Eat, Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Shall Die" response, wherein the pseudo-skeptics finally concede that we're fucking up global climate, but just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well", or pretend that they care about poor people because "OMG, if we move from oil, just imagine all those poor brown-skinned people that will be harmed!" as if they ever actually cared about vulnerable populations.
What it all really lays bare is the pure greed and nihilism of the fossil fuel lobby, oh, and the complete idiocy of morons on the Internet who follow them.
Wow, so the last few guys are only going to be out by a few years. How awful of them.
You are aware that the arctic has spent most of this winter at 30 degrees above seasonal norms, right?
Perhaps you could provide citations in peer reviewed and primary literature. You know, actually demonstrate that that is what the science is saying.
Indeed. My son-in-law's best friend fights wildfires, and he's expecting a bumper summer, because despite lots of snow in Coastal British Columbia, interior regions have had far less snow, which means there's a high expectation that this is going to be a very bad year for forest fires. The costs of those fires are monumental, and many of those costs are spread fire and wide by insurance companies who will need to jack up premiums across the entire pool to make up for the costs. Insurance rates are literally the canary in the coal mine here, and actuaries have been factoring the numerous effects of climate change for some time now.
No, deserts heat up and expand, and you have hundreds of millions of people trying to move into your back yard, meaning you have to pay a fuck ton more in taxes to support border patrols, armies, all the while you're facing food and water supply problems because your bread basket regions suddenly are less productive, and you become more reliant on foreign sources of agriculture. Meanwhile many other costs, like insurance, start skyrocketing, or many climate-related problems simply aren't covered. Oh yes, and as mentioned elsewhere collapse of many major fisheries, which will lead to huge pressures on coastal populations in many parts of the world where those fisheries are a significant, if not primary source of protein.
Will it happen in your lifetime? If you're under thirty, very likely yes. I'm in my mid-40s, so hopefully I'll miss some of the nastier effects. My kids and grandchldren won't, sadly. But the West is pretty wealthy, so doubtless will pull through relatively alright, though tens of millions of refugees fleeing regions far more vulnerable and far less economically capable of weathering the worst of it, will start showing up, as I mention above, and the costs of keeping them out or integrating them will be huge. Some areas will simply become unlivable by even the hardier animals, and people have this habit of not just sitting down and dying when survival where they are becomes impossible.
What we do know is that Saudi Arabia is spinning off the largest sovereign wealth fund in history. The Saudis know full well that petroleum's reckoning is coming soon, so they're making what they can of it while they can. Like I say elsewhere, in a hundred years I bet large swathes of the Arabian desert will be salt reactors and solar collector arrays. I'll wager they have every intention of being energy titans, whether that be in the form of fossil fuels or solar.
And really, who the hell would want to invest in oil right now? It's clear that OPEC has lost any power to manipulate the price. Every time it looks like supply is going to be restricted, boom the price gets knocked again. Up here in Canada we're watching investment in the oil sands fall simply because production costs are so high, and oil prices so low, that there's little point to even bothering. Shell has sold off 1.3 billion dollars in assets in Canada, so when the big guys begin to act like the end game is coming, you know it isn't far off.
Of course, for the petroeconomies this is a disaster. Whether it's the extreme case like Venezuela, or the more moderate economic contractions of Alberta or North Dakota, a lot of jurisdictions who have basically lived off the oil teat are facing long-term woes.
Others make the case better. I'm just here to call out pseudo-skeptics for what they are; liars and morons. Do you think, say, anti-vaxxers, Creationists and the whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd deserve some sort of continued decent respect. At some point, people who make false and absurd claims should simply be treated like the intellectual midgets they really are.
Because, of course, the effects of AGW will touch you in no way. Clearly, being an AC in a wealthy developed nation makes you immune to physics.
Not Even Wrong
You understand the Universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your political and economic ideology, right?
Or we could, you know, work to reduce CO2 emissions. In the end we'll have to do it anyways, so why not start now? Why just build higher levies and give the middle finger to brown-skinned people unlucky enough to have been born in developing nations?
All that counts is that he provided a link. It could be a link to two gay apes with a bottle of lube, but he provided a link, therefore AGW DISPROVEN!!!
You're dealing with desperate morons.
We'll see significant change when every ounce of profit that can be wrung out fossil fuels has been made, or at least close enough to it. And then suddenly you're going to start seeing big solar farms on the Arabian Peninsula and Shell(tm) Wind Farms.
So basically, you just write word salads.
I don't give a crap if you take me seriously. I consider you on the same level as a Creationist or an anti-vaxxer. You're just an idiot who is too infantile and too cowardly and too ideologically driven to see that the laws of physics don't give a fuck about ideology. CO2's properties are not bounded by what you would like CO2 to do when concentrations increase. The laws of physics make it inevitable that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an unavoidable increase in solar radiation being trapped. That's just the way the Universe works, so the fact that it's going to mean either accepting significant climactic changes or changes in the way we produce energy is irrelevant to said laws of physics. The Universe doesn't care that you're upset about greenhouse gas effects. How you feel is irrelevant, and just as irrelevant are vain attempts to create faux critiques of physical laws.
The Salem Hypothesis neatly describes the sort of delusional belief that many engineering types have in their own abilities, and confusing engineering with science. Not that some engineers can't be scientists, but it's not something that just automatically comes with the qualification. The Salem Hypothesis original applied only to Creationism, but seeing as how much of the anti-science rhetoric first developed by Creationists is basically being recycled for the AGW pseudo-skeptic movement, I think it's fair to extend the hypothesis to most engineering types who somehow assume that they have some special insight into fairly complex and specific areas of science.
Because that's not what they're asking for. Even your "unmodified data" statement demonstrates that you're just aping a talking point.
I will fucking repeat, because you appear to be either a fucking moron or out and out malicious. The radiation absorption properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. There is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING, let me repeat that, because you appear to be a fucking idiot, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE FUCKING THING controversial about increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere that will lead to increase trapping of energy,
For fuck's sake, the Arctic was some thirty degrees above normal seasonal temperatures for most of this winter. Most of the last twenty years have been the hottest on record. Increased absorption of CO2 in the world's oceans is changing ocean pH levels. Do you think making spurious demands based largely on bullshit you read on denier sites somehow overrides the laws of physics? Are you really that fucking stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Which has what to do with what? Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Options are offered by various economists, and each and every one is in turned attacked. Yes, there are fruitcakes out there, but so what? The fact remains that if we do not end the fossil fuel economy soon, we're going to fuck things up badly. Enough to kill off humanity? Well no, but it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad, and will eat into the economies of wealthier countries.
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
This seems to be a pretty false analogy, along the lines of the early 20th century attempts to compare atoms to solar systems, when in fact, they have almost nothing in common.
And common sense is utterly meaningless. What counts is the evidence, and as many have pointed out, a lot of physicists have real problems with the "multiple worlds" interpretation of QM and the Uncertainty Principle, not to mention all the extrapolations being pulled out of String Theory, when even String Theory's advocates can't even describe the theory (being that the math is insanely complex).
In other words, there is, as of yet, simply no evidence for the multiverse. The only universe that we can demonstrate exists is the one we live in, and that's all we have evidence for, and it will be a very long time before we have the ability to even test any multiverse hypotheses that are born out of the "many worlds" interpretation or string theory.
Are Parker and Stone even contesting AGW anymore?
This was taking from a Futurama script, right?