Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'

Quote from trefoil:

Ocean acidification and coral reefs

Combine rapidly rising ocean temps with acidification, and forget about it. It's over.
Listen carefully now to what I'm saying: the Mauna Loa records show that all the measures taken so far have had no effect. As that is the case, there is no reason to think levels in 2100 will be less than the IPCC projection. At those levels, given cool ocean temps, relatively, you get the effects in the cited article. But of course those temps aren't what's going to prevail at 700 ppm or higher of CO2.
Now, given your juvenile response, which is the same response most people would give, the chance that levels in 2100 will be any less, given the extraordinary measures that would have to be taken to keep them from getting there, is very low. That isn't because it's inevitable: it's because people like you are too stupid to understand what's going on.
I'm sure you didn't get the rest, but I'm quite certain you got that last sentence.
More...

Lets just say that I accept your claims as fact (lol) what do u think we should do about it? I would think that if an individual is logical that they would try and find ways to deal with the problems instead of the impractical approaches underway now. The policies/ideas of this movement, are what gives away the fairy tale they are based on. If we need to change our energy policy, why is nuclear energy shunned? It is many many times more potent than anything else in existence, even in theory. 'Green energy' doesn't have a chance of replacing fossil fuels, but that is the focus. Why would we need to pay a carbon tax if we are already doomed? What are these jokers going to do with the funding?

The most important question is: how can anyone seriously, truly believe that the rest of the world is going to buy into this bullshit and just stop living their lives as they always have without concrete evidence? You're on a trading website and I am a gambling man.. I call your bluff on this whole mess. Especially after this latest state of the planet article in the beginning of this thread. PROVE me wrong if u can. :p
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Lets just say that I accept your claims as fact (lol) what do u think we should do about it? I would think that if an individual is logical that they would try and find ways to deal with the problems instead of the impractical approaches underway now. The policies/ideas of this movement, are what gives away the fairy tale they are based on. If we need to change our energy policy, why is nuclear energy shunned? It is many many times more potent than anything else in existence, even in theory. 'Green energy' doesn't have a chance of replacing fossil fuels, but that is the focus. Why would we need to pay a carbon tax if we are already doomed? What are these jokers going to do with the funding?

The most important question is: how can anyone seriously, truly believe that the rest of the world is going to buy into this bullshit and just stop living their lives as they always have without concrete evidence? You're on a trading website and I am a gambling man.. I call your bluff on this whole mess. Especially after this latest state of the planet article in the beginning of this thread. PROVE me wrong if
u can. :p
More...

You don't have to accept what he says as fact. You could look it up yourself. Try google....ocean acidification.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

You don't have to accept what he says as fact. You could look it up yourself. Try google....ocean acidification.
More...


I find it amusing knowing you bedwetting liberals cry yourself to sleep at night dreaming of the eminent end of the world.:D :D
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

You don't have to accept what he says as fact. You could look it up yourself. Try google....ocean acidification.
More...

An article on google doesn't prove anything. If you guys know (ahahaha) that in 100 years the oceans will not support life and we are finished then you should accurately be able to tell us what the 'levels' will be much sooner than that. How about a prediction right now for every year for the next ten years? Don't tell me that it can't be done because if it can't then you are full of shit. if it was this easy to predict future events then how come u guys aren't raping the financial markets? If you can't predict what a man made system in which all of the rules are known will do.. then how the fuck can you predict systems made by cosmic forces which we (humanity) doesn't fully understand for a fact? You are making the claims so the burden of proof is on you.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

An article on google doesn't prove anything. If you guys know (ahahaha) that in 100 years the oceans will not support life and we are finished then you should accurately be able to tell us what the 'levels' will be much sooner than that. How about a prediction right now for every year for the next ten years? Don't tell me that it can't be done because if it can't then you are full of shit. if it was this easy to predict future events then how come u guys aren't raping the financial markets? If you can't predict what a man made system in which all of the rules are known will do.. then how the fuck can you predict systems made by cosmic forces which we (humanity) doesn't fully understand for a fact? You are making the claims so the burden of proof is on you.
More...

Well, we're not oceanographers. That's why we listen to what THEY say. I don't think they are saying the oceans will be lifeless in 100 years.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Well, we're not oceanographers. That's why we listen to what THEY say. I don't think they are saying the oceans will be lifeless in 100 years.
More...

Well trefoil is claiming just that according to his posts on pg 5 of this thread and the article he linked to.

I'm guessing you're an atheist, as am I, you don't believe in God because there is no actual proof it exists. I don't believe in AGW just because THEY say so.. i require something more concrete than that. If they really expect everyone to get on board then they are going to have to PROVE it, we aren't all going to become climatologists and oceanographers etc to understand wtf they are saying. this is an accurate analogy.

I love science and I trust in the work of various scientists to varying degrees but im NOT one. People believe in science that is applicable to reality and rightfully so, I am one of them. The story behind the first nuclear reaction comes to mind.. no one had even glimpsed atoms at this point but they had reasoned that they must exist, and PROVED it with a nuclear reaction.. followed by an A-bomb etc. So they knew what they were doing but even they had conflicting THEORIES among themselves, some thought the chain reaction would expand into atoms not associated with the core material used in the blast and destroy the planet. point is, even something that actually worked was all theory UNTIL it worked. What is extremely troubling about AGW is that there is, according to most 'believers', unanimity in what really is just theory. The opposition is not even considered, yet AGW is not scientific law, this is more politics than it is science. rational people can see this for what it is, so yea im calling u irrational but not stupid etc.. u just aren't putting this together because u want to believe it.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Well trefoil is claiming just that according to his posts on pg 5 of this thread and the article he linked to.

I'm guessing you're an atheist, as am I, you don't believe in God because there is no actual proof it exists. I don't believe in AGW just because THEY say so.. i require something more concrete than that. If they really expect everyone to get on board then they are going to have to PROVE it, we aren't all going to become climatologists and oceanographers etc to understand wtf they are saying. this is an accurate analogy.

I love science and I trust in the work of various scientists to varying degrees but im NOT one. People believe in science that is applicable to reality and rightfully so, I am one of them. The story behind the first nuclear reaction comes to mind.. no one had even glimpsed atoms at this point but they had reasoned that they must exist, and PROVED it with a nuclear reaction.. followed by an A-bomb etc. So they knew what they were doing but even they had conflicting THEORIES among themselves, some thought the chain reaction would expand into atoms not associated with the core material used in the blast and destroy the planet. point is, even something that actually worked was all theory UNTIL it worked. What is extremely troubling about AGW is that there is, according to most 'believers', unanimity in what really is just theory. The opposition is not even considered, yet AGW is not scientific law, this is more politics than it is science. rational people can see this for what it is, so yea im calling u irrational but not stupid etc.. u just aren't putting this
together because u want to believe it.
More...

I'm wondering what you consider to be proof of AGW. Will it be when the temperatures are 8 degrees higher in 100 years?

If I showed charts of temps and CO2 and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has gone up 40% in the last two hundred years, would that be proof? How about that 97% of all climatologists agree on it?

If we wait for 100% proof it'll be too late.
 
Calling yourself an atheist and demanding proofs from climate scientists about whether or not AGW is a fact or not proves you're not educated enough to understand what they're saying.

If you are in fact educated, then it shows you're too lazy to go and look for the facts thereby rendering every single argument you make against AGW in the same league as my morning shit.

If you have in fact searched it via university or via publicly accessible databases and couldn't see the proof, then you're not educated ENOUGH to understand it.

All of the above are not in the job description of a scientist- i.e., they are not going to hold your hand and walk you through the proof.

It's the job of an informed citizenry to read up on scientific and technical advancements that taxpayer funded research has accomplished.

The job of the scientists is to provide the research in a publicly accessible venue.

What's actually required, it seems, is that for the deniers to prove that they're not idiots.
 
Quote from babutime:

Calling yourself an atheist and demanding proofs from climate scientists about whether or not AGW is a fact or not proves you're not educated enough to understand what they're saying.

If you are in fact educated, then it shows you're too lazy to go and look for the facts thereby rendering every single argument you make against AGW in the same league as my morning shit.

If you have in fact searched it via university or via publicly accessible databases and couldn't see the proof, then you're not educated ENOUGH to understand it.

All of the above are not in the job description of a scientist- i.e., they are not going to hold your hand and walk you through the proof.

It's the job of an informed citizenry to read up on scientific and technical advancements that taxpayer funded research has accomplished.

The job of the scientists is to provide the research in a publicly accessible venue.

What's actually required, it seems, is that for the deniers to prove that they're not idiots.
More...

Make no mistake, i call myself an atheist because that is the best way to describe my beliefs, or lack thereof. i don't give a fuck what other atheists think or believe. I don't need to be in 'league' as far as AGW is considered because it is theoretical bullshit, and until i see proof i personally wont do a fucking thing differently.

Also taxpayer funded is the key phrase, I don't want MY fucking taxes subsidizing this garbage. Civilization is expanding, humanity is expanding, people aren't going to go backwards. So if these scientists want to be taken seriously then they better come up with ways to prove it to the laymen. I'm not going to waste a second of my time researching this as I believe it to be a political movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top