global warming...

punch them in the face

its hotter than under the devil's balls right now

Yesterday in the valley of LA it was 90 at ten in the fucn morning

All bad

i dont know what the simile to use is

and i have lived in south sudan
this shit is hellish.

It's whether it's man made.

I'll kind of half way admit I don't 100% beliee it to be a fact.

Mainly because scientist 50 years ago were terrified of over-population and an impending ice age and now the concern is underpopulation and global warming.

That and scientist co-sign "dark matter" and that shit is clearly a placeholder for some phenomenon they truly don't understand.




>global warming...
>
>punch them in the face
>
>its hotter than under the devil's balls right now


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I'll kind of half way admit I don't 100% beliee it to be a
>fact.

you aren't scrutinizing enough.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

we'd have to first of all ascertain that you know what the scientific method is
otherwise we are going to waste time arguing about your beliefs and opinions

and no scientist believes anything 100%

>we'd have to first of all ascertain that you know what the
>scientific method is
>otherwise we are going to waste time arguing about your
>beliefs and opinions
>


sceince for poets...but my position is fueled more by my philosophy classes and the question of the limits of scientific knowledge.


>and no scientist believes anything 100%

Then why did you question/challenge my statement "I don't 100% believe it to be a fact."?




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>but my position is fueled more by my
>philosophy classes and the question of the limits of
>scientific knowledge.


>>and no scientist believes anything 100%

>Then why did you question/challenge my statement "I don't 100%
>believe it to be a fact."?


because there is always a margin of error
there's nothing like 'fact', the way you are using the word
on climate change, there's a >90% probability that it is man-made
this is pretty high
the consensus among scientists cannot even be questioned.

>there's nothing like 'fact', the way you are using the word
>on climate change, there's a >90% probability that it is
>man-made
>this is pretty high
>the consensus among scientists cannot even be questioned.


If you don't see the inconsistencies in that statement then maybe you shouldn't be having "science debates (sic)".




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it's only a *problem* if you think of humanity as a pyramid scheme and don't care about sustainability.

if we invested in clean, productivity-increasing technology and managed to get off-planet, sure, always-increasing population would be the shit because the economics are easy.

but that's not our world right now.

Did you mean overpopulation?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

overpopulation is

the topic?

>overpopulation is


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

we are already in the age of the anthropocene
that should scare the bejesus out of any rational human being

"I don't 100% believe it to be a fact."



>we are already in the age of the anthropocene
>that should scare the bejesus out of any rational human being


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

of talking shit to me for saying I am not 100% certain climate change is man made, but then admitting that "no scientist believes anything 100%"?





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

is not the same as saying that global warming is happening and that scientists are >90% certain that it is caused by humans

to translate this from 'scientist speak' to 'non-scientist speak'- there is absolutely no question about this- if it makes you feel better, colloqually, then yes. 100% fact.

but scientists don't speak in absolutes - which is why its usually very difficult to translate this to someone who doesn't understand the core principles of scientific rationale.
you always allow for the possibility of a) being wrong or b) a better explanation coming along
so....there is a less than 5% chance that global warming is caused by something else *other* than human activity
shit, maybe the sun has moved closer!

say there is no 100% certainity, they are correct?

GTFOHWTBS.

You should be embarrassed by the verbal contortions you went through to make my statement look more controversial and wrong then it actually is.

The fact is you read waaay more into my statement than the words on the screen and assume that I am some anti-science climate change denier which I am not.


I believe climate change is real and that it is very probably affected by human activities.

But I would not say that I am 100% certain that it is man made simply because of what any person with a scientific background would tell you, there are limits to what you can know with absolute certainity through science. There is absolutely nothing controversial or wrong with at statement.

I don't need you to science-splain the scientific method or core principals of sceintific rationale...I am not an idiot. I went to good schools and that's all part of a basic education.

So there is no need to translate scientist speak to non-scientist speak. It's insulting. and it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about when you say silly things like, well no there is no absolute certainity but um yeah colloqually it is 100% fact. That's just dumb.

Stop. Please. We are all grown ups with formal education. No one is a climate change denier so we can admit that we are not 100% certain that current climate change is all the result of man made activity.



>is not the same as saying that global warming is happening
>and that scientists are >90% certain that it is caused by
>humans
>
>to translate this from 'scientist speak' to 'non-scientist
>speak'- there is absolutely no question about this- if it
>makes you feel better, colloqually, then yes. 100% fact.
>
>but scientists don't speak in absolutes - which is why its
>usually very difficult to translate this to someone who
>doesn't understand the core principles of scientific
>rationale.
>you always allow for the possibility of a) being wrong or b) a
>better explanation coming along
>so....there is a less than 5% chance that global warming is
>caused by something else *other* than human activity
>shit, maybe the sun has moved closer!


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>say there is no 100% certainity, they are correct?
>
>GTFOHWTBS.
>
>You should be embarrassed by the verbal contortions you went
>through to make my statement look more controversial and wrong
>then it actually is.
>
>The fact is you read waaay more into my statement than the
>words on the screen and assume that I am some anti-science
>climate change denier which I am not.
>
>
>I believe climate change is real and that it is very probably
>affected by human activities.
>
>But I would not say that I am 100% certain that it is man made
>simply because of what any person with a scientific background
>would tell you, there are limits to what you can know with
>absolute certainity through science. There is absolutely
>nothing controversial or wrong with at statement.
>
>I don't need you to science-splain the scientific method or
>core principals of sceintific rationale...I am not an idiot.
>I went to good schools and that's all part of a basic
>education.
>
>So there is no need to translate scientist speak to
>non-scientist speak. It's insulting. and it makes you look
>like you don't know what you are talking about when you say
>silly things like, well no there is no absolute certainity but
>um yeah colloqually it is 100% fact. That's just dumb.
>
>Stop. Please. We are all grown ups with formal education. No
>one is a climate change denier so we can admit that we are not
>100% certain that current climate change is all the result of
>man made activity.
>
>
>
>>is not the same as saying that global warming is happening
>>and that scientists are >90% certain that it is caused by
>>humans
>>
>>to translate this from 'scientist speak' to 'non-scientist
>>speak'- there is absolutely no question about this- if it
>>makes you feel better, colloqually, then yes. 100% fact.
>>
>>but scientists don't speak in absolutes - which is why its
>>usually very difficult to translate this to someone who
>>doesn't understand the core principles of scientific
>>rationale.
>>you always allow for the possibility of a) being wrong or b)
>a
>>better explanation coming along
>>so....there is a less than 5% chance that global warming is
>>caused by something else *other* than human activity
>>shit, maybe the sun has moved closer!
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

or the issue of negative population growth rate trends of developed nations (and the assumption that eventually all nations will be developed nations)?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it's a product of modeling that only cares about growth.

it's buying a bunch of shit you can't afford and then saying the problem is you're not making enough money.

we were always going to come due on our excesses/inefficiencies regardless...we're actually in better shape if the population levels off now than if we wait until we get to carrying capacity/disaster and have a population crash, because we'll have less debt to pay off.

and, furthermore, negative population growth isn't a thing globally or even regionally. the eu isn't forecasted to reach peak population for another generation, and is *never* projected to be less than what it is right now. if we distributed resources and skills-training better and cut out the racism, there wouldn't even be the bogeyman of underpopulation.

>it's a product of modeling that only cares about growth.
>
>it's buying a bunch of shit you can't afford and then saying
>the problem is you're not making enough money.

I don't know what you are talking about here at all. I am not at all talking about consumption. I am talking about the trend of advance nations in Europe and some Asian countries of suffering from population growth that is way below replacement level and some countries like Japan and Germany that are currently experiencing population decline. And trends that don't speak well for developing nations like Much of Africa, South America and the Mideast that have rapidly dropping fertility rates.


>we were always going to come due on our
>excesses/inefficiencies regardless...we're actually in better
>shape if the population levels off now than if we wait until
>we get to carrying capacity/disaster and have a population
>crash, because we'll have less debt to pay off.
>
>and, furthermore, negative population growth isn't a thing
>globally or even regionally. the eu isn't forecasted to reach
>peak population for another generation, and is *never*
>projected to be less than what it is right now. if we
>distributed resources and skills-training better and cut out
>the racism, there wouldn't even be the bogeyman of
>underpopulation.

I am talking very long term trends. If population growth PEAKS in a generation, what follows a PEAK? decline maybe?

Again, I am not talking a generation. I am talking 100 year trends.

But you know, always down to learn, if you got sources for this population debt stuff, always down to read.






**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

you don't seem to have an explanation for why negative population is a problem. i'm assuming you've read a lot about the burdens of elder care in those nation amid declining populations. those *are* issues of consumption and standard of living.

i'm saying, it's the other side of the coin as the problems created by unchecked population growth. the lack of sustainability is the issue. population projections just give us one limit (and there are other limits, like global warming) on how long we have until sustainability issues catch up to us.

europe (and russia's) population bubbles are small, and the problems associated with what you're describing are going to be solvable. europe's peak is projected to be followed by a leveling off, and the level off is higher than where we are right now.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Projected_population_as_of_1_January,_EU-28,_2014–80_(¹)_(2014_%3D_100)_PF15.png

population leveling off in 2 generations is not a crisis. it's something they are planning for and working through.

japan is a different story, but the lesson there one of unsustainable population GROWTH, not the dangers of negative population. population density in japan is 10x that of the u.s. (and the difference was greater than that at the height of the baby boom in both countries). the situation now is a direct result of that. japan actually experienced something akin to the crash that we'd worry about from overpopulation, because the population density and import costs made having larger families economically impossible for so many young japanese.

south korea is facing a similar (but less dramatic) population bubble, and its not nearly the same crisis as it is in japan because the it didn't have as dramatic of an early economic/population explosion. south korea also seems to be slightly more open to re-examining it's national identity in order to deal with the next century than japan is.

if people push the economic growth model in the next 50 years, it's going to be much worse in india and china than it is in japan currently. but it's the irresponsible growth and lack of planning now that's going to do the damage....not the declining fertility rates themselves.

and there are plenty of countries in the developing world (a good chunk of africa for example) that show no signs of slowing down over the next century.

the best thing that can happen to any population (assuming we don't gain access to new resources) over the long hall is for fertility rates to drop sooner rather than later and quicker rather than slower.

you got the "underpopulation" story backwards.

of people.

At least that's the concern I remember reading about a couple of years ago in this article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html




>you don't seem to have an explanation for why negative
>population is a problem. i'm assuming you've read a lot about
>the burdens of elder care in those nation amid declining
>populations. those *are* issues of consumption and standard of
>living.
>
>i'm saying, it's the other side of the coin as the problems
>created by unchecked population growth. the lack of
>sustainability is the issue. population projections just give
>us one limit (and there are other limits, like global warming)
>on how long we have until sustainability issues catch up to
>us.
>
>europe (and russia's) population bubbles are small, and the
>problems associated with what you're describing are going to
>be solvable. europe's peak is projected to be followed by a
>leveling off, and the level off is higher than where we are
>right now.
>
>http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Projected_population_as_of_1_January,_EU-28,_2014–80_(¹)_(2014_%3D_100)_PF15.png
>
>population leveling off in 2 generations is not a crisis. it's
>something they are planning for and working through.
>
>japan is a different story, but the lesson there one of
>unsustainable population GROWTH, not the dangers of negative
>population. population density in japan is 10x that of the
>u.s. (and the difference was greater than that at the height
>of the baby boom in both countries). the situation now is a
>direct result of that. japan actually experienced something
>akin to the crash that we'd worry about from overpopulation,
>because the population density and import costs made having
>larger families economically impossible for so many young
>japanese.
>
>south korea is facing a similar (but less dramatic) population
>bubble, and its not nearly the same crisis as it is in japan
>because the it didn't have as dramatic of an early
>economic/population explosion. south korea also seems to be
>slightly more open to re-examining it's national identity in
>order to deal with the next century than japan is.
>
>if people push the economic growth model in the next 50 years,
>it's going to be much worse in india and china than it is in
>japan currently. but it's the irresponsible growth and lack of
>planning now that's going to do the damage....not the
>declining fertility rates themselves.
>
>and there are plenty of countries in the developing world (a
>good chunk of africa for example) that show no signs of
>slowing down over the next century.
>
>the best thing that can happen to any population (assuming we
>don't gain access to new resources) over the long hall is for
>fertility rates to drop sooner rather than later and quicker
>rather than slower.
>
>you got the "underpopulation" story backwards.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it seems unlikely that people would go extinct due to something they could literally fuck their way out of, but if that's the fate our descendants choose, it'll mean our species had avoided a lot of terrible pitfalls, and it wouldn't be a bad way to go.

etc.


>it seems unlikely that people would go extinct due to
>something they could literally fuck their way out of, but if
>that's the fate our descendants choose, it'll mean our species
>had avoided a lot of terrible pitfalls, and it wouldn't be a
>bad way to go.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

namely women with education and options. women are literally choosing not to have children, it's not often the secondary result of some other choice. if conditions change in the future, they might make different choices, but it's obvious why it's a better choice right now. even in japan.

most human problems are the results of lack of information, deliberate misinformation, or an inability to project consequences into the future.

people weren't choosing to put a hole in the ozone or kill waterbirds or develop lung cancer. they happened because people wanted hairspray and healthy crops and that soothing sensation. once we realized what was causing those problems, we adjusted.

you can bet we're going to figure it out with obesity and diabetes in the next two generations in the developed world. we might have already started reversing it in the united states...children hitting school now are less likely to be obese than they were five years ago.

for the real big human problems, it's more difficult because the adjustments are so big you have to combat low information for a much higher percentage of the population. that's whats going on with global warming right now.

where women are now making decisions about the number of children they would like to have
(thank you, contraceptives!)
whereas the avg number of children was something ridiculous like +6
its falling
and i say not fast enough
the worry is that the older age (dependent) population is rising much faster
and its going to be very difficult to support that population in future
the concern is not that there are too few human beings on this planet
its why i support more relaxed migration policies.

if continue unabated over the long term.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html


>where women are now making decisions about the number of
>children they would like to have
>(thank you, contraceptives!)
>whereas the avg number of children was something ridiculous
>like +6
>its falling
>and i say not fast enough
>the worry is that the older age (dependent) population is
>rising much faster
>and its going to be very difficult to support that population
>in future
>the concern is not that there are too few human beings on this
>planet
>its why i support more relaxed migration policies.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

when we can't even say the planet will be able to sustain human life for the next century. it's an nth degreee bleow the sun is going to explode.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Mainly because both problems can't be the true threat. It's probably either one or the other. If underpopulation is a real problem, then you probably won't have to worry about the over-consumption problem (it would actually be hillarisad for humanity if we hasten the underpopulation problem by being too aggressive on the over-consumption problem).

Either underpopulation is a real threat or trend or it isn't.



>when we can't even say the planet will be able to sustain
>human life for the next century. it's an nth degreee bleow
>the sun is going to explode.
>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I'm talking about, temperatures and rising sea levels.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>I'm talking about, temperatures and rising sea levels.
>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Our exploitation of resources isn't strictly because of population demands.

Even further, waiting for a significant population decline to manage overconsumption is as backwards with stakes so high and said decline to be centuries in the future.

So again in 2016...

But I digress.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and rising sea levels TODAY?"

>Our exploitation of resources isn't strictly because of
>population demands.

It doesn't have to be but the problem is currently it is right?


>
>Even further, waiting for a significant population decline to
>manage overconsumption is as backwards with stakes so high and
>said decline to be centuries in the future.

I didn't say we should wait for population decline to deal with overconsumption.


>
>So again in 2016...
>
>But I digress.
>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

That's why i said decouple consumption from population, because while the answer could be consumption, it is a false assumption to blame that on the size of the population. Rather its the choices made on what, how, and how much we consume which are primarily motivated by profit not providing for the needs of the population, that have led us down this road.

We could continue to grow as a population and not be at the same risk if we had made more globally ethical decisions decades ago.

> and rising sea levels TODAY?"
>
>>Our exploitation of resources isn't strictly because of
>>population demands.
>
>It doesn't have to be but the problem is currently it is
>right?

No. If it were a population problem we wouldn't have so much waste and people going without.

>I didn't say we should wait for population decline to deal
>with overconsumption.

No but you seemed to imply that since the evidence was pointing to a decline in population it offset the issue, which it doesn't.

>
>**********

Off topic VVVVVV is the title of Charlie Hunter's new album

>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

And there's definitely a natural phenomena in there. But denying the way humanity is tipping the scale is dumb (not that you did that). It was dumb a decade ago. Today its just some denial shit.

Also warming can lead to an ice age as backwards as that sounds. And I think its pretty clear dark matter is a placeholder for effects we're still studying.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

So far, the argument seems to be primarily that we're pumping SO much carbon into the environment that some, if not all, of the warming is caused by us. We know how much carbon we're pumping out but I don't believe we know how much warming it is actually causing (versus natural effects).

That would be important to ensure our response is at the appropriate scale. Unfortunately, without that quantification, we're stuck with either doing "EVERYTHING" or "NOTHING".

>It's whether it's man made.
>
>I'll kind of half way admit I don't 100% beliee it to be a
>fact.
>
>Mainly because scientist 50 years ago were terrified of
>over-population and an impending ice age and now the concern
>is underpopulation and global warming.
>
>That and scientist co-sign "dark matter" and that shit is
>clearly a placeholder for some phenomenon they truly don't
>understand.
>
>
>
>
>>global warming...
>>
>>punch them in the face
>>
>>its hotter than under the devil's balls right now
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>That and scientist co-sign "dark matter" and that shit is
>clearly a placeholder for some phenomenon they truly don't
>understand.

yeah, that's the point. doesn't make it any less real.

Jesus Christ.

lead you to believe otherwise. There are literally THREE ways humans could be become extinct.

a. a new predator emerges that takes ppl out
b. extinction level event
c. all people stop having babies


the changes of a & c happening are rare. now certain populations could become extinct (and have). but as a whole, the world? no. but did you even read the article which spoke on the issues OTHERS bought up in this very thread about overpopulation and the real issues in regards to this decrease in population growth?

But why would extinction ever be a concern of yours? it's going to happen one day but outside of option A or B, not in our lifetime...so really, you should focus on things that affect our generation, and our children's generation because really that's all we have.

Which would be ironic considering folks thought overpopulation would be the end of humanity.



>lead you to believe otherwise. There are literally THREE ways
>humans could be become extinct.
>
>a. a new predator emerges that takes ppl out
>b. extinction level event
>c. all people stop having babies
>
>
>the changes of a & c happening are rare. now certain
>populations could become extinct (and have). but as a whole,
>the world? no. but did you even read the article which spoke
>on the issues OTHERS bought up in this very thread about
>overpopulation and the real issues in regards to this decrease
>in population growth?
>
>But why would extinction ever be a concern of yours? it's
>going to happen one day but outside of option A or B, not in
>our lifetime...so really, you should focus on things that
>affect our generation, and our children's generation because
>really that's all we have.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I think it is definitely legitimate and an emergency, but there are disputes about how aggressive we should be against it.

>there are disputes about how aggressive we should be against
>it.
>
>

Are solar panels enough to offset our carbon footprint?

Should we be engaging in war over oil or investing in technology which would make it obsolete?

Is hydrofracking a contributor to global warming and should we be investing in it?

Is natural gas actually safer than current CO2 emissions or does it accelerate the issue?

Is the temperature at the poles rising warmer a serious concern regardijg how too far gone we are in need to have acted YESTERDAY?

Is rising water levels a threat to societies in vulnerable areas and could result in massive population displacement?

Is drought more or less of a threat than ISIS?

These are some of the considerations out there that people think are still up for debate. There has been enough misinformation out there to get people vote at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion that there stances are ALL hoaxes or are real but not emergencies. The way we are headed as a country clearly consider these this not an emergency, so we should probably punch almost everyone in the face.

and its widely recognized that its not one thing that will address climate change, but multiple things
and we also recognize that some of the things we try will not be successful
and we'll have to learn from mistakes

>Is hydrofracking a contributor to global warming and should we
>be investing in it?

there's no question about moving away from fossil fuels-however they are being extracted- the (economic) feasibility of doing this within this time-period is the issue

>Is natural gas actually safer than current CO2 emissions or
>does it accelerate the issue?

i dont know what this means
natural gas is preferred because it emits far less CO2 than coal. reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty much the goal

>Is the temperature at the poles rising warmer a serious
>concern regardijg how too far gone we are in need to have
>acted YESTERDAY?

i dont understand this question. what? can you provide a link to this?

>Is rising water levels a threat to societies in vulnerable
>areas and could result in massive population displacement?

i dont think this is a question- there are numerous instances where we see societies already affected by this. where did you read that its not a threat?

>Is drought more or less of a threat than ISIS?

what? this is not a scientific query. i don't even know how these are linked
where did you see this qn raised?

>These are some of the considerations out there that people
>think are still up for debate.

please post a few links of these claims- cause i'd like to know where these questions are coming from
these are not questions among climate scientists, or environmentalists.


>The way we are headed
>as a country clearly consider these this not an emergency, so
>we should probably punch almost everyone in the face.

im all for this.

I hope Hillary's environmental and economic positions help to drastically combat climate change.

http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-weather-blog/washington-state-only-refuge-from-national-heat-wave

the shitty part is because we're the only area left with 4 seasons of non-severe weather, water, plants, etc. is that everyone and their momma is moving here (which is why rents have gone up here faster than anywhere else in the USA in the last year).

but fear not, we'll be fucked in 5 years. this summer hasn't been hot (in fact i'd say we had more "hot" days in May/June and have had none since) but it's been way more humid than normal. humidity is my personal hell, so....fuck this summer.

i had kids who would start complaining in springtime as soon as it was hitting 70 on sunny days. everyone thought i was crazy for enjoying walking to the bus in 85 degree weather.

climate control.

I swear you can't make this shit up.

>I swear you can't make this shit up.


why would you have to make it up?
its happening.

in peace http://www.gifbin.com/bin/032010/1268393910_george_clooney_at_the_oscars.gif

>in peace
>http://www.gifbin.com/bin/032010/1268393910_george_clooney_at_the_oscars.gif
>
>

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3914361/Russ-Troll.gif

i thought you had more in store
so far the only thing you've really said is
you think people who know things are annoying
which....ok. good to know.
im i now supposed to appease you and be as stupid as you are? is that where this was headed?
or were you just letting it all out and now you are done?
if so, glad to have been of help

& in no way did I come close to sayin or THINKIN "you think people who know things are annoying".

This goes along wit you bein a know it all twit.

Watching you two go back n forth is like watching two blondes fight
over gravity.

its a very common bullying tactic
used by kids... against the 'smart-ass'
so, even though i think its a bit disturbing that you regress to grade-school taunts..
i still do welcome the acknowledgement.

Whatever makes you feel better bout bein an idiot, I'm here for you boo

i want to know how *you* feel about akon - not anyone else
(if they want to know, they can start their own thread.... i'm sure you got more of those gifs to share)

so...let it all out. it will only make you feel better about yourself
you might want to mix it up a little
so far you just have 'know it all'
and 'twit (is that a little british influence i detect there? my my! brexit might just turn out to have been a cultural exchange)
oh and the sarcasm thing- which, do you know how hard it is to pull off sarcasm on the internet?
i mean damn! its exciting to know that im actually pulling it off! its exactly my intention

and of course, last but not least, idiot
i think that was supposed to get a rise out of me or something
is that supposed to make me question my intellect?

its not really clear
if yes, no need to be coy!
since you've turned this into your very own personal 'let it all out' therapy session
let it all out!
and since the theme of this session is
our memories of being the playground bully who hated the smart kids for making him feel inadequate!

dont stop!
im here to make you feel better about yourself.

Or any form of testosterone in your life?
Might calm ya down a bit.

>Or any form of testosterone in your life?
>Might calm ya down a bit.

you think im tryna imply?

And is that the theme of this session?

are you flexing your balls now?
do you feel manly and big and strong?
is your testosterone (ala deejboram) surging?
did you get a slight bump in your IQ? you feel smarter now?

anything else i need to clarify?
seeing that you are the non-idiot in this.

http://i.giphy.com/bzftBJmLyLqMM.gif

the gifs just drive the point home.

i cant believe i missed when i reached that milestone!
do show and tell
let the proofs begin!
really looking forward to this 'intelligent' exchange

This post is proof.

when you argue with an insane person
folks on the outside looking in can't tell the difference

>when you argue with an insane person

and it didn't even take many posts! wow, i'm impressed.

you are definitely flexing your infantile thought process on here.
... when you have nothing to say..... use words like idiot, insane, etc
y'know. turn to kindergarten grade insults.

kudos! you and the big kuntry are par on par. this is officially the mate-ing

You're an articulate African female.
No need to go down this path.
Stay above the fray.
Okay?

>You're an articulate African female.
>No need to go down this path.
>Stay above the fray.
>Okay?

why, because you have testosterone and need to put me in my place?
(i can see why you voted for trump. you probably applauded the blood coming from wherever statement, among others)

or are you preceding your calls for help from the mods when you start feeling your inadequacies showing?
quite in line with your pulling yourself up by other people's bootstrap thing you got going, i must say. kudos

except right now, Pasadena Ca is matching or almost matching the record high everyday for the last month. ive lived here for twelve years. never been anywhere near this hot, this long.

it was 54C (~130F) in kuwait on thursday - they think thats the highest ever recorded since we started recording
india just recorded its hottest day ever (51C)
my main worry is whether we have reached the point where we are talking adjusting to changing climate, and not mitigating

and then there is this;
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/17/seven-climate-records-set-so-far-in-2016

>it was 54C (~130F) in kuwait on thursday - they think thats
>the highest ever recorded since we started recording
>india just recorded its hottest day ever (51C)
>my main worry is whether we have reached the point where we
>are talking adjusting to changing climate, and not mitigating


i think there may be some measuring bias going on

Last week of July and first two weeks of August be the hottest days of the year in northern hemisphere

has changed since we have been children...the hottest months will remain the hottest, and the coldest are the coldest. Climate change WONT affect that, what it does affect is hot or cold it gets...

so yeah I can say this past winter was the warmest winter I experienced because I can CONFIDENTLY say that there were no 80 degree days in December when I was a child, but there were quite a few this past year. But ppl who live in areas where seasons don't exists and flow into one another seamlessly (i.e. the weather is always within 20 degrees anytime of the year) wouldn't recognize a change at all...only ppl with TRUE seasons are going to see it.

And how many mosquitos we still see around the place, chilling like it's beer and BBQ time.

I just love the idea that climate change scientists foresaw what's happening now ages ago and despite being so right about that came to those conclusions with faulty science. How lucky!

>And how many mosquitos we still see around the place,
>chilling like it's beer and BBQ time.

specifically mosquitos
its a bit worrying. some malarial zones are expanding, and places which were previously unexposed are at increasing risk of exposure, due to climatic conditions being conducive to the spread of the parasite.

i dont know if there are any positive scenarios in climate change

.

"they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”

Because it seems like people need to be reminded of it every day.

The arrival of the third blind mouse (and see how they run!)
Are you also here for your quota of attention?
were you feeling left out of the peanut gallery?

I like the fire, it's good for the boards.

i was just reading an article about a city that has a 1.50 water tax that goes toward forestry conservation efforts.
i know i would - it would be less costly than anything we will have to do in future.

and i definitely do support a carbon tax.

i'd like to read a summary of the paris agreement - its a bit shameful that only 19 countries have ratified it (from wiki) and majority of these countries, are rightfully island states which stand at greatest risk.

even the EU has not ratified it *frown*

*im about to write to my environmental minister to ask if *we* plan to

that money will end up in someone's bank account.

hell no, no more taxes.

(c) alot of devout christians

they bug me out with that one

they very badly want the world to end
so.... if the end is nigh, bring it on.

btw, what happens to the christian science narrative when it comes to climate change?
usually they try their damnest to fit science into their xtian beliefs by inserting god in the midst somewhere
this time they are ok with just saying climate change is a hoax? thats a bit lazy

i don't know many devout christians who are also scientist who believe in this manner. if nothing else, i think we (myself included) acknowledge that everything that happens in the world is not a result of God, but of man because God gave free will to man to do what they want, that includes fucking up the world. Maybe I'm lucky but I don't know any real scientists who are also Christian who think climate change is just God....I guess I should be thankful

nothing to do with this topic, but intriguing nonetheless
never heard of this flower before

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/24/487261502/you-can-watch-a-rare-stinky-corpse-flower-bloom-on-live-video

that would be pretty funny, but apparently chickens are everywhere
so when we are all dead and gone some later civilization will be wondering why they
are finding chicken bones everywhere


"The new epoch should begin about 1950, the experts said, and was likely to be defined by the radioactive elements dispersed across the planet by nuclear bomb tests, although an array of other signals, including plastic pollution, soot from power stations, concrete, and even the bones left by the global proliferation of the domestic chicken were now under consideration."

interesting read; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/29/declare-anthropocene-epoch-experts-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth