Climate Change Report

[Laviticas]

Latrine, what is the correct climate we are aiming for ? To say things are broke, we must know what the correct climate looks like.

And bullshit, they did say it was going to cause global cooling.

[Tgo01]

The specifics depend on how much of our current environment you want to preserve.

1%.

[waywardgs]

1%.

Dibs

[Johnny Five]

I was very disappointed by this global warming last week. I did not find 34 degrees as acceptable for the middle of July. Fuck you Fargo.

[Laviticas]

So I bought a new car, I really wanted the hybrid (not that a give a shit about being green, but saving green I'm down for) but 16k more for the hybrid. Now let me do the math here. I use roughly 5 gallons of gas a week, the standard combustion engine was rated at 35mpg and the hybrid was rated at 50 mpg. That's about 7 dollars savings per week, times 52 weeks = 43 years to make back that 16k. Back to the drawing board bitches.

[Johnny Five]

So I bought a new car, I really wanted the hybrid (not that a give a shit about being green, but saving green I'm down for) but 16k more for the hybrid. Now let me do the math here. I use roughly 5 gallons of gas a week, the standard combustion engine was rated at 35mpg and the hybrid was rated at 50 mpg. That's about 7 dollars savings per week, times 52 weeks = 43 years to make back that 16k. Back to the drawing board bitches.

The extra 16k in cost is to replant the five miles of forest that is killed during the making of those hybrid batteries. Shame on you for not buying one.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrine, what is the correct climate we are aiming for ? To say things are broke, we must know what the correct climate looks like.

It's less about position and more about velocity. Think of it like a car: your distance from a cliff is absolutely relevant, but how fast you're moving towards it is even more so. Right now we're speeding towards the cliff, and all people are saying is we shouldn't do that. If you like, speeding towards a cliff is "incorrect".

And bullshit, they did say it was going to cause global cooling.

If so, it should be easy for you to find citations in peer reviewed journals.

1%.

Do whatever. We'll be dead before we cause a runaway greenhouse scenario, and way more than 1% of our environment will survive what we do do.

[Laviticas]

It's less about position and more about velocity. Think of it like a car: your distance from a cliff is absolutely relevant, but how fast you're moving towards it is even more so. Right now we're speeding towards the cliff, and all people are saying is we shouldn't do that. If you like, speeding towards a cliff is "incorrect".If so, it should be easy for you to find citations in peer reviewed journals. Do whatever. We'll be dead before we cause a runaway greenhouse scenario, and way more than 1% of our environment will survive what we do do.

Peer review or not, when the psycho left starts bombarding young minds with after school specials about the coming ice age, it's all a broken record.

Your not using science, or logic. Any monkey that points at something and says it's broken, has to have knowledge of what that something looks like in correct working order. How do you know if it's fixed or even broken in the first place if you don't know what it looks like in the right working order?

This is why it's coming off as nonsense to a lot of us. Give us a model of the norm.

[Latrinsorm]

Peer review or not, when the psycho left starts bombarding young minds with after school specials about the coming ice age, it's all a broken record.

I thought we were talking about scientists. How did "the psycho left" and "after school specials" get into it?

Your not using science, or logic. Any monkey that points at something and says it's broken, has to have knowledge of what that something looks like in correct working order. How do you know if it's fixed or even broken in the first place if you don't know what it looks like in the right working order?

...I just told you what it would look like in "correct working order".

This is why it's coming off as nonsense to a lot of us. Give us a model of the norm.

If you want the full mathematical model you should talk directly to the climatologists, as I believe I've suggested to you before. Contact information is available in the pdf from the first post. I am comfortable believing that their modeling has been reviewed by their peers, so I am comfortable looking only at the results.

[waywardgs]

Peer review or not, when the psycho left starts bombarding young minds with after school specials about the coming ice age, it's all a broken record.

Your not using science, or logic. Any monkey that points at something and says it's broken, has to have knowledge of what that something looks like in correct working order. How do you know if it's fixed or even broken in the first place if you don't know what it looks like in the right working order?

This is why it's coming off as nonsense to a lot of us. Give us a model of the norm.

It's not the difference between "broken" and "normal." It's about what constitutes an environment suitable for human habitation and how much of that would be acceptable to lose.

Besides, your whole concept is incorrect. There is nothing "broken" about how the environment is reacting to what we're doing to it- it's just a matter of chemistry and the laws of physics.