Welcome to Thunderdome

Uh, ok. Keep fighting the good fight, change the world. Pretend the system isn't rigged. You can do it.

Your surrender is noted.

To be fair, you surrendered on elections. Why can't he surrender here?

But the change in temp over 100 years not alarming? At all?

Do I think man can damage the environment? Of course.
Do I think that even without fear of doing said damage we shouldn't pollute? Yes.

However, there's been a LOT of bullshit going on. From emails revealing shady methods, funding for studies only when certain results are achieved, widespread ignoring of factors like the sun, temperature models being thrown out because they don't match what climate alarmists want it to match, the inability of weather outlets to get tomorrow's weather right let alone weather 10 years from now, "the debate being over", things being stated as fact despite no full picture of the Earth's temperature history being created or known (is this part of a natural cycle?), ignoring anything that might contradict their argument like Antarctica's ice actually growing at record rates, faking footage in documentaries, etc.

Most importantly, people are getting rich off of global warming. Al Gore is exhibit A.

That all leads me to be skeptical.

Should we stop polluting? Yes.

Are we all about to die because the planet's overheating thanks to us? I don't know.

However, maybe instead of cutting emissions, we just eliminate some people?

To be fair, you surrendered on elections. Why can't he surrender here?

I haven't surrendered, I'm merely digging in for the long term. I'm not declaring third parties invalid and dead.

That all leads me to be skeptical.

Refraining from burning coal and oil seems like a solid idea unless someone comes up with a great way to remove the plainly filthy byproducts.

However, maybe instead of cutting emissions, we just eliminate some people?

Spectacular idea. But only if we pick the right ones.

Dibs on being The Decider.

I haven't surrendered, I'm merely digging in for the long term. I'm not declaring third parties invalid and dead.

You do when you don't vote for them.

Refraining from burning coal and oil seems like a solid idea unless someone comes up with a great way to remove the plainly filthy byproducts.

Ok...why did you say that when quoting this: "That all leads me to be skeptical."?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to quote this: "Should we stop polluting? Yes." for that response?

By the way, nuclear power is far cleaner than coal and oil, but that doesn't make hippies happy either.

But only if we pick the right ones.

Without walking around and picking person by person I can think of entire regions of the world that haven't been pulling their weight for the human race.

You could also make the argument that maybe we just stop caring for a decade and things will take care of themselves. I think Louie C.K. does a bit on that.

On a related note, whatever happened to not cutting down the rain forest? Why is all the pressure being put on citizens? Hey Gordo, you cut down any rain forest lately? If so, stop it!

Seems to me the focus is on people and how we're polluting by using too much, yet the planet's #1 resource for oxygen is being torn up and that's being ignored? Does that time line that XY whatever posted take the destruction of Earth's rain forests into account?

By the way, nuclear power is far cleaner than coal and oil, but that doesn't make hippies happy either.

That's because hippies are idiots. Nuclear is a phenomenal source of power we could be using for almost everything. The waste produced is tiny in comparison to coal and oil, and is still quite energetic which just means today's nuclear waste will be tomorrow's source of fuel as the state of the art advances. And more use of fission technology will naturally lead to big increases in fusion research, which is the real source of awesome amounts of power that we eventually need.

But for some people science is just too scary.

We should have been going nuke since forever. But Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Contrasted with how many oil platform disasters we've had.

TheCatt wrote:Kids suing government due to global warming

Fucking idiots. And their parents.

Fear mongering at its finest.

How does this type of bullshit help anyone? If you're trying to sway opponents, won't they simply say, "Well, no point in changing now!"

I think one of the biggest problems global warming folks have in their PR is none of them ever read "The Little Boy That Cried Wolf". I've been alive 44 years and have been told the Earth and mankind was doomed due to a new ice age, global warming, and holes in the ozone layer.

Remember how those holes in the ozone layer would never close? Yet somehow they did. Somehow glaciers never moved across the central U.S. in the 80s. Global warming promises doom and destruction if our temps go up another degree or two, yet they've been much higher in the past. Now we're being told carbon levels are too high and can never regress, yet they have been higher and have regressed in the past.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of screaming about the sky falling and how if you take even a moment to ask about their data and methods you're a fucking moron and worse than Hitler, had they taken a softer tone in their message people would be more willing to buy into it.

It doesn't help that their biggest advocate in the states is a failed and bitter politician who lives in a massive sprawling complex that uses tons of energy and who has gotten richer than all other parts of his life combined once he took up the global warming issue.

I think some people just can't face the fact that their time is short and utterly insignificant on the scale of history. They have to believe that right now is the most crucial time in which anyone has ever and will ever live, and the simplest way to believe that is to believe that the world is coming to an end in their lifetime. Up until this century all those people were focused on the apocalypse, the second coming, and other religiously-driven beliefs in the world ending. Now that many of these people no longer have religion to cling to for importance, they've turned that same irrationality to scenarios revolving around science and technology; nuclear winter, global warming, asteroid impacts, and the like are always just about to happen any day now.

That's not to say that nothing bad can be about to happen. For all I know an uncharted world-shattering asteroid might smack into us right after I post this. But these people need to believe something like that is about to happen in order to have any sense of meaning.

On fark the other day I responded to an environmental fear monger with "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." He said I was foolish and immature.

I really really wish that all the people who do that.... when they are on their death beds, and the weather outside is fine and the birds are singing and the world never changed.... I want the last thing they hear in this world to be me whispering into their ear, "I told you, you fucking idiot, and you were a fool all your life and you will be forgotten when you are gone, when we aren't outright mocking you."

Hey sign the climate deal so we can stop having hurricanes.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/cur ... top-storms

Hey look a black reporter being biased towards Democratic candidates and agendas. That's like spotting a unicorn.

And since what he said is insanely stupid and biased I'm sure the MSM will be all over dismantling him like they do when right leaning reporters say something stupid and/or biased, right?

*crickets*

Today's "the sky is falling" report.

Ok, so you're saying that 2/3rd of all animals will be gone in 3-4 years? Do you know how stupid that sounds? Even if you qualified this statement in your report, you had to know that's not how the MSM would report it. So when everything looks the same in 2020 how much do you think the public will give a fuck about your next declaration?

If you want to "save" the environment, let's go about it differently:
1. Hire the marketing firm behind the new no smoking ads because they're working according to the numbers. They're doing what nobody else has been able to do, so let's them try with pollution.
2. Fine companies who pollute and give tax credits for them reducing their pollution.
3. Tax credits for companies that use vendors who have anti-pollution products or methods.
4. Death penalty for poachers. Use drones to help combat them.
5. World wide ad: "Dear Japan, Stop hunting whales or we're done protecting you from China. Sincerely, The U.S."
6. Ban fishing, sailing, swimming, etc. anywhere within 20 miles of the great barrier reef.
7. "Death penalty" for companies clearly violating pollution laws and doing things that are dangerous to local residents and wildlife. For example: The company Erin Brokovich sued who were polluting despite having proof that they were hurting/killing people. As soon as it's proven in court, their board gets charged with whatever took place.
8. End trade with countries that don't play ball. The purchasing power of the EU and U.S. would be enough to make most countries get in line.

You don't need to rip these apart. I put zero thought into them. I'm simply showcasing that drastic measures could be taken, but clearly our leadership doesn't see enough of a threat to do anything about it, but we expect individual people to change their lives?

Leisher wrote:I'm simply showcasing that drastic measures could be taken, but clearly our leadership doesn't see enough of a threat to do anything about it, but we expect individual people to change their lives?

Seriously. The people in charge give zero real fucks, they just say certain things to get the environmentalist vote. If they were actually concerned about life on earth ending, they'd do something substantial aside from throwing more taxes at citizens.

But nope.

1. Hire the marketing firm behind the new no smoking ads because they're working according to the numbers. They're doing what nobody else has been able to do, so let's them try with pollution.

Really? I almost go out and buy a pack of cigs every time I see one of those annoying fucking things.

Malcolm wrote:

1. Hire the marketing firm behind the new no smoking ads because they're working according to the numbers. They're doing what nobody else has been able to do, so let's them try with pollution.

Really? I almost go out and buy a pack of cigs every time I see one of those annoying fucking things.

I was barely ever a "real" smoker, but I felt that way about the previous ones. See those ads were aimed at everyone so they weren't good at hitting specific demos. The new ads are aimed at kids, and as annoying as they are to us, they seem to be working with kids.

It helps that e-cigs are killing traditional tobacco markets.

Malcolm wrote:It helps that e-cigs are killing traditional tobacco markets.

That is a fair point. However, we're getting off topic of how we're all doomed.