Climate Change Report

[Atlanteax]

Hyperbolic nonsense is hyperbolic.

Never stopped WB for that matter.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

No, I'm referring to the thread where you claimed supporters of gay marriage advocate forcing Christian churches to perform same-sex marriages. You were challenged, repeatedly, to provide the slightest evidence of such a claim, and you ran from the thread, screaming how you weren't going to respond to the likes of me. Hint: That's called you conceding.

Mostly you're just ignored for being an idealogical moron.

[Jarvan]

No, I'm referring to the thread where you claimed supporters of gay marriage advocate forcing Christian churches to perform same-sex marriages. You were challenged, repeatedly, to provide the slightest evidence of such a claim, and you ran from the thread, screaming how you weren't going to respond to the likes of me. Hint: That's called you conceding.

Actually. It was called me being away for a few days working, but sure let me dig up an old thread...

http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.u...hurch_wedding/

Sure it's England... but.. hmm.. They are still gay.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...x-marriage-law

In the US.

There you go, found two in just a few minutes.

[Latrinsorm]

This doesn't change anything. The Earth goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming...I see no evidence anywhere that mankind is hastening this or even affecting it. It's simply impossible to prove on the timeline we've been studying it, compared to the timeline of the Earth. We have, however, proven that the Earth was MUCH warmer than it is now at different times in it's past, with zero humans on the planet. So yeah, I'm still a skeptic.

You aren't convinced by Question 6? In part: "[The past 200 years'] speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale." You're focused on position, but what about velocity?

And the reason climate models show 1880 - Present, and not 1840 - Present

It's odd that you keep harping on this when the report cited in the OP does in fact show 1840-present, right on page 3.

Do we need to work on tech that can equal fossil fuels? Hell yes. Are we even remotely close? Fuck No.

There is a fundamental flaw in your math. Take your analysis of the solar plant:

The 230 MW Antelope Valley Solar Ranch is a First Solar photovoltaic project which is under construction in the Antelope Valley area of the Western Mojave Desert,[25] which is due to be completed in 2013. The project has received a $680 million government loan guarantee.

680 Million (if on budget) for 230 MW. Think "Green" people in LA will be happy to pay 90$ per KWH?

You are confusing Watts and Watt-hours. To convert between the two you need to know the power plant's capacity. A solar plant has dramatically lower capacity than a coal plant, so a 50 MW solar plant will produce less MWh than a 50 MW coal plant. However, sunlight is dramatically cheaper than coal, so the only additions to the $680m cost would be maintenance and however much profit they want. Algebriacally...

.1 = (680,000,000 + maintenance) / (230,000 * .25 * time)

If we set maintenance to zero, we break even in...

time = (680,000,000 / .1) / (230,000 * .25) = 118 thousand hours = 4,927 days = 13.5 years.

Obviously there will be some maintenance and we want profit rather than just breaking even, but just as obviously we'd expect a power plant to run for more than 13.5 years. This is why if you look at this chart the values are all pretty close.

So you are saying it's an indisputable fact? 100% of the world agrees?

People don't have to agree with an indisputable fact. That's what makes them people.

[Ashliana]

Actually. It was called me being away for a few days working, but sure let me dig up an old thread...

http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.u...hurch_wedding/

Sure it's England... but.. hmm.. They are still gay.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...x-marriage-law

In the US.

There you go, found two in just a few minutes.

1) You're talking about a foreign country with an entirely different legal system, and they're challenging the Church of England, which is a state-endorsed body with the queen at its head (and marriage equality has already been passed in the UK).
2) This isn't an example that supports your claim. The guy is withholding his alumni donations to the school in protest of their decision, not suing them or advocating them to be forced by law to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.

My response to you in the other thread:

In any case, if you're suggesting that any mainstream activist organizations are lobbying to require religious institutions to perform or recognize same-sex marriages, I'd ask you to produce evidence of that claim. Because I, interested and invested in the subject, have never seen such an organization even once in my entire life.

You have produced no examples. Since you're ignorant, I'll repeat: There are no marriage equality advocacy groups in the US that advocate requiring private institutions to marry same-sex couples, period.

[Jeril]

This is always amusing. It should be obvious by the number of people there are and how much of the planet we cover that we affect it. We can't really say whether it is good or bad for the planet or not because we have no idea what it would be like without us. We don't even really know how what we are doing is going to impact things in the long run, we are just guessing and grasping at straws. When it is all said and done the planet will still be here, the question is will we? Jarvan does raise some good points, if 90%+ scientists have agreed we should be doing something, why aren't they changing the direction of their research? Letting a small portion of people who disagree hold you back is rather silly. We should be pushing for nuclear power and further research in that direction because it is the most likely place for us to find better sources of energy. We also need more research and development on solar energy, last I heard it only really works because the government gives people money and tax breaks because of it, it really needs to be more self sustaining.

I also wonder just how many environmentalist have children and how many with more then two. They are supposedly worried about our footprint on the planet yet they continue to add to it. Someone posted a theory that the world population will become stable around 10bil, I'd bet good money that it doesn't. In order for that to become even remotely true you'd have to have most of the third world countries up to the level of tech, life style, ect, that we have here in American now.

[waywardgs]

.People don't have to agree with an indisputable fact. That's what makes them people.

And facts.

[Johnny Five]

This is always amusing. It should be obvious by the number of people there are and how much of the planet we cover that we affect it. We can't really say whether it is good or bad for the planet or not because we have no idea what it would be like without us. We don't even really know how what we are doing is going to impact things in the long run, we are just guessing and grasping at straws. When it is all said and done the planet will still be here, the question is will we? Jarvan does raise some good points, if 90%+ scientists have agreed we should be doing something, why aren't they changing the direction of their research? Letting a small portion of people who disagree hold you back is rather silly. We should be pushing for nuclear power and further research in that direction because it is the most likely place for us to find better sources of energy. We also need more research and development on solar energy, last I heard it only really works because the government gives people money and tax breaks because of it, it really needs to be more self sustaining.

I also wonder just how many environmentalist have children and how many with more then two. They are supposedly worried about our footprint on the planet yet they continue to add to it. Someone posted a theory that the world population will become stable around 10bil, I'd bet good money that it doesn't. In order for that to become even remotely true you'd have to have most of the third world countries up to the level of tech, life style, ect, that we have here in American now.

Or become China and make people file for permission to have a child. If you don't your ass goes to jail. Or we could do it like the Spartans and throw all the weak babies in a bottomless pit.

[Parkbandit]

[Latrinsorm]

Jarvan does raise some good points, if 90%+ scientists have agreed we should be doing something, why aren't they changing the direction of their research? Letting a small portion of people who disagree hold you back is rather silly.

Everyone knows the hydrogen atom: one electron going around one proton, one moon circles. The overall structure is obvious, but research continued because of lesser effects (among which are the creatively named "fine" and "hyperfine" structures). Crucially, the fine structure doesn't cast doubt on how many electrons or protons there are, but rather offers a precise adjustment to the model to explain new information.

In the same way, the model of the environment (or any other science) must always be checked against new information. Adjustments to the model don't imply that the model was fundamentally or entirely flawed. To a scientist, it is worth researching whether the carbon dioxide produced by automobiles in winter contributes 3 or 4 millionths of a degree, or whatever. There's no question (in the hypothetical) that automobiles produce carbon dioxide which causes warming, but science is all about quantitative measurements: how much exactly? Note how you could look at this process and cynically describe it as "scientists are always changing their minds about automobiles' contribution to global warming!!!". That would be intentionally misinterpreting the situation, but again, this is something that people can do. We lie. We cheat. We steal.

And even if the environmental model was perfect for all possible future data, a climatologist is (usually) not a sociologist. Describing what happens to the environment is not the same proficiency as describing how to change the behavior of people, or even how to create solutions to environmental problems. It's all well and good to say "well, less carbon dioxide from cars", but it takes an engineer to figure out how mechanically to do that.