Anthropomorphic climate change impact miniscule compared to natural variations.

[neptronix]

High-fidelity record of Earth’s climate history puts current changes in context

https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/09/climate-variability.html



I'm glad that some organization with a name decided to put this data together.
I've seen climate records from the vostok ice core data long ago, showing a huge variation in temperature over time and noticed we were in a cooler point in the earth's history, and also, the earth's temperature is getting less stable, and colder over time.

Here's a 5 million year data plot showing the variance of climate from the age before human activity.



I have always thought that earth spins on more than one axis. That's why we see things like fossils of tropical life in Antarctica. Basically, what we see as the 'equator' is always moving.

I wouldn't say i don't believe in global warming. It's happening, for sure. But future projections from the IPCC, etc assume a growing population and also a supply of fossil fuel that grows in proportion to it, in order to heat the planet up further. But we're seeing the growth of world population slowing down. The nightmare scenario seen in the projections for the year 2300 likely assumes something crazy like a 50,000 PPM CO2 level in order to raise temperature that much through AGW. Most of life would be dead on the planet before CO2 ever got that high.

I think we should still transition away from fossil fuels as fast as possible due to the huge health effects from pollution that they create. But the impact of AGW does not line up with the doom and gloom rhetoric that we've heard a lot of. The impact of other forms of pollution is much greater.

 

[spinningmagnets]

I dont have any comments about global warming.

As to tropical evidence in Antarctica, cores from the bering strait (between Siberia and Alaska) show corals, forests and other warm weather flora/fauna of the type that would not survive one snowy winter, much less the arctic permafrost we have today.

Mammoth elephants found in Siberia did have hair, but not to survive the cold. The volume of greenery needed to keep huge packs of elephants alive is impressive, and every single mammoth "elephant" would starve if there was one single snowy winter.

Siberia was as green as the grassy plains of Africa when the mammoths were there. Their stomachs have been frozen and preserved.

Did it happen over millions of years? Uranus spins on its side. If it was thrown our from the sun, as we are certain all the planets in our solar system have been...we must come up with some force that could redirect the axis of Uranus after it attained it's current orbit. If we agree on some actor with that kind of power, why is it not possible that this same actor changed the axis of the Earth a couple of times?

North America was once covered by a huge glacier. I'm open to discussion, but the evidence is puzzling...

Lava flows are cooled and solidified with the magnetic orientation of the Earth at the time that it solidified. Regardless of location, as we dig down through the layers, the worldwide lava magnetic orientations are consistent with each other. But different from the surface today.

I'm not talking about a magnetic field reversal, but about the axis being different, and having changed several times in the Earths history.

 

[neptronix]

Yup. I live in Utah, and something like 100,000 years ago, everything here was underwater. It is now classified as a desert.
We still have people attributing the shrinking of the great salt lake to climate change... however, a lot of the water that would flow into the lake from the mountains is being diverted away from it, and also, the lake has been drying out slowly for a very long time on it's own.

A lot of the AGW scare articles operate on the assumption that natural features of the world would stay the same, if we would just stop burning fossil fuels. They ignore global migrations of humans and animals in response to constant climate change, which can happen slowly over time, or suddenly.

This line of thinking operates on the idea that none of the above things happened and the earth only spins on one axis, which is absurd!!

 

[Balmorhea]

We shall soon find out whether we and the fellow passengers are adaptable enough to get through what our greed and callous indifference have done in the last 200 years, because while the changes are very much within normal variation, the rate of change is unprecedented in the historical or geological record.

In the big picture, it's probably for the best if we reduce the human population of Earth by 99% or more. So there's that.

 

[neptronix]

Actually the rate of change is completely precedented in the geological record. There have been much more extreme shifts. All long-form data shows that.

Who lives and who dies in any planetary change is determined by who chose to adapt to conditions which are ever changing.

If the growth of the world's population continues to slow, AGW may never present a large enough problem in our lifetimes to be the main reason for a mass migration or mass dieoff.

It's drastically more likely we will run out of fossil fuels, drinkable water, and arable land.
Solutions to those problems are extremely pressing.

 

[Balmorhea]

Actually the rate of change is completely precedented in the geological record. There have been much more extreme shifts. All long-form data shows that.

Those much more extreme shifts took several orders of magnitude more time to occur. At the moment, we're on the express train. As humans, we won't have lots of generations to iterate more suitable bodies for the newly revised world.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

[neptronix]

Not exactly. A single volcano eruption can produce more changes in temperature in a huge area in a matter of days than elevated levels of carbon dioxide have over a 200 year span of time. We have records of this happening hundreds of time.

An asteroid strike can have a larger impact and that's happened many times.

Our impact is the equivalent of a very small volcano in constant eruption, but this pales in comparison to what the earth is capable of itself.

One thing to notice is that global warming is not global, it's local. The arctic has heated up and lost ice. But we only have a few decades of data on what the ice volume was. So we can't compare it to past trends very well.

The antarctic has not seemed to have lost much ice. We don't actually have an ice volume count for that body of ice. We just have a measurement of landmass covered in ice. If we just use the landmass count, one could actually say that the ice is growing. But that's not correct. The truth is that we don't objectively know what direction it was headed in before us, or even right now.

AGW's effects are attributed to many things which we do not have sufficient data to attribute them to. Natural variations of temperature are drastically higher. It is hard to separate natural phenomena from our impact.

 

[goatman]

when i was out mining/prospecting, i would be 3000 ft above sea level looking at ancient river systems. they figure the ice was about 1 mile thick and these river systems were under the ice.

go 10 miles in another direction and you would find a prehistoric forest that was flattened like in a nuclear explosion and charred, that was buried in 3 feet of volcanic ash and 10 feet of river gravels on top of it at about 2000feet. in that region there were gold bearing deposits at 1000,2000 and 3000 foot elevations

the way i looked at the situation was this, the sea levels were probably a heck of alot lower back then and the humans would stay at sea level, before roads, waterways were the highways but then when all the glaciers melted, sea levels rose and submerged alot of our history. we just move up and down and around with the water

the earth is constantly recycling itself. i liked graham hancook and randall carlson on joe rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8

 

[LeftieBiker]

From the original link, which the OP seems to have...overlooked:

For the past 3 million years, Earth’s climate has been in an Icehouse state characterized by alternating glacial and interglacial periods. Modern humans evolved during this time, but greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities are now driving the planet toward the Warmhouse and Hothouse climate states not seen since the Eocene epoch, which ended about 34 million years ago. During the early Eocene, there were no polar ice caps, and average global temperatures were 9 to 14 degrees Celsius higher than today.

“The IPCC projections for 2300 in the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario will potentially bring global temperature to a level the planet has not seen in 50 million years,” Zachos said.

 

[Balmorhea]

Not exactly. A single volcano eruption can produce more changes in temperature in a huge area in a matter of days than elevated levels of carbon dioxide have over a 200 year span of time. We have records of this happening hundreds of time.

Yeah. But a volcanic eruption has a short expiration date. And it doesn't happen all over the world simultaneously. It's like a bone break, or an abcess. It heals, although more slowly than it occurred.

Industrial capitalism is more like a metastatized malignant tumor. It keeps on keeping on until bad things result. And then it keeps on keeping on as more bad things result, etc.

 

[neptronix]

From the original link, which the OP seems to have...overlooked:

For the past 3 million years, Earth’s climate has been in an Icehouse state characterized by alternating glacial and interglacial periods. Modern humans evolved during this time, but greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities are now driving the planet toward the Warmhouse and Hothouse climate states not seen since the Eocene epoch, which ended about 34 million years ago. During the early Eocene, there were no polar ice caps, and average global temperatures were 9 to 14 degrees Celsius higher than today.

“The IPCC projections for 2300 in the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario will potentially bring global temperature to a level the planet has not seen in 50 million years,” Zachos said.

My response to that commentary is a few messages above actually.

 

[ZeroEm]

Yes, yes, yes, the earth will be livable in your life time and the earth will go on after your dead and your money is put in the ground with you.

In the mean time all life on earth is being wiped out. Was the earth hotter yes, if you like hot planets move to Venus and yes it was cooler once too. We would like to put off the demise of the human race for as long as we can not speed it up.

Theory of plate tectonics
Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth's outer shell is divided into several plates that glide over the mantle, the rocky inner layer above the core. The plates act like a hard and rigid shell compared to Earth's mantle.

The Earth’s magnetic field is on the move, with the North Pole shifting and currently on its way to Siberia. Changes within the magnetic field and the Earth’s core are happening so rapidly that the World Magnetic Model is in dire need of an update. The last time the World Magnetic Model was updated was in 2015 and it wasn’t scheduled to be updated again until 2020.

Everything moves and changes like the evolution of E-bikes, best not to go to fast.

I'm getting tired of this old technology of fossil fuels. How old is it. let's compress gas into liquid and let it expand in the cylinders for a 100 yrs or so.

 

[Hillhater]

Resussitating a dormant thread...
Much (if nit all) of the AGW/ Climate Alarmism was based around the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph produced in 1998 by M Mann, and built on by the UN IPCC ..amongst others.
That fundamental piece of the evidence has recently been proven to be a fraud...”Fake Science” even !
Mann and his collaborators, deliberately left out data that would have shown much more variability in historic temperatures, rather than the apparently stable conditions implied by the “shaft” of the Hockey stick.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud

 

[leisesturm]

Resussitating [sic] a dormant thread...

Why? Is the other one not going your way anymore? Don't expect any difference here either. I was listening the other day to this fascinating documentary on a part of the world I didn't catch. The pre-technical people there train trees across rivers to be used as bridges by FUTURE generations. The actual 'builders' of these bridges will not live to see the projects completed but they are using bridges built by past inhabitants and they are paying it forward by continuing the tradition.

NYC's amazing underground transportation system know to most of the world as "The Subway" was largely complete by 1908. Since that time, barely more than a dozen miles of new track has been added. An ambitious project to connect the 'E' line to JFK airport was started in the '80's or something. Out of 11 planned stops, maybe 5 were actually completed. To this day, NYC has no actual 'Train to Plane' capability.

Thanks, mainly to the utter degredation of our environment to the point where it is actively impacting human longevity, we have reached the point where ANY man that reaches the age of 65 has a 100% chance of presenting detectable Prostate Cancer. Other things 'may' (likely) kill him first, but in the abscence of any of them, the cancer WILL kill him and thus no human male will ever again live past ~85 y.o. no matter how much he exercises, no matter how good his diet, no matter how religious, moral ... ...gone are the days when men could smoke, screw and swear their way into triple digit age records.

So, is AGW our biggest problem? Of course not! But most women don't have Prostates! Kind of obvious, that. Maybe. But, consider that half of the Western World, the cohort most responsible for, not just AGW, but also the advanced degredation of the bio-sphere ... half of them won't be appreciably moved by the fact of an impact on male longevity by, mainly, an overreliance on ICE technology. What if you could make a more 'universal' appeal? One which wasn't at its core reliant on possessing male reproductive equipment. Women are the agents of birth and the primary nurterers of human offspring. What is wrong with presenting AGW as a warning against degredation of the environment? It's not a lie. So ... why not? It's not a rhetorical question, btw.

 

[neptronix]

Mann and his collaborators, deliberately left out data that would have shown much more variability in historic temperatures, rather than the apparently stable conditions implied by the “shaft” of the Hockey stick.

Almost every use of science as a vessel for activism, profit, or misinformation has used an 'error of omission' type of deception to prove their case. I do believe that was used extensively here. I started smelling bullshit when all the graphs published by alarmists conveniently omitted periods in the earth's history where temperatures rapidly escalated well beyond what we see today, sans an event like a mega volcanic explosion.

The more i looked into longer term data, the more i doubted the degree to which human activity is responsible for today's temperatures. Not that we shouldn't clean up our act anyway.

Thanks, mainly to the utter degredation of our environment to the point where it is actively impacting human longevity, we have reached the point where ANY man that reaches the age of 65 has a 100% chance of presenting detectable Prostate Cancer. Other things 'may' (likely) kill him first, but in the abscence of any of them, the cancer WILL kill him and thus no human male will ever again live past ~85 y.o. no matter how much he exercises, no matter how good his diet, no matter how religious, moral ... ...gone are the days when men could smoke, screw and swear their way into triple digit age records.

Oh the horror!

Actually, one can defend themselves from this environment. People still live into their 100's in many regions. We have advanced technologies for detecting and filtering water, air, etc. We can change our diets and lifestyles. There are experimental drugs and nutraceuticals that show extension of the lifespan in experimental animal models. Solutions exist.

I live in one of the most polluted states in the USA, and have:
A water filter from walmart that cost me $40, which outputs water with a total dissolved solids of 0.
An air filter which was the one picked by the federal government to handle gaseous bioweapons, asbestos particles, and other hard to filter pollutants... it can even capture ozone and volatile organic compounds.
A desk dedicated to compounding my own herbal and nutraceutical medicines.
A prep station for mass producing healthy meals.
Some exercise equipment.
And recently, an artificial sun which provides a 95% accurate rendition of the sun itself, sans UV-C rays.
Computer controlled humidity, heat, and circulation.
..and many other planned improvements in the future.

.. in myself, i have eliminated lots of health issues by controlling my environment.
Basically i live in a biodome. Entering my house is a health enhancing experience. My setup gets lots of compliments from visitors, even though it is unusual.

Anyone can set up what i have for a total of $800. You can shave $380 off that total cost by building your own DIY air filter with a box fan and an industrial grade MERV 16 carbon impregnated filter... then we're down to $420 to produce a health human environment, and $200/year after that. Not expensive at all - less than what the average person blows on fast food in a single month.

So, despite the fact that our consumption of advanced industrial goods is killing us.. said industry can used to mitigate the health hazards it creates. If someone dies early to our environment, it is quite a shame, as the technology exists to prevent that.

The sad thing is, we can't rely on our governments to keep us safe from ourselves anymore. That's a dead end right now, and has been for decades. Take action in your own living environment.. you won't regret it.

 

[Dauntless]

Resussitating [sic] a dormant thread...

Why? Is the other one not going your way anymore? Don't expect any difference here either. I was listening the other day to this fascinating documentary on a part of the world I didn't catch.

No, you seem to have missed that this thread is suddenly relevant. It's in the news. The news. Nobody expects you to be different. Of course you didn't catch something, we're used to you missing everything. But you don't let that stop you.

Oh the horror!

Actually, one can defend themselves from this environment.

The sad thing is, we can't rely on our governments to keep us safe from ourselves anymore.

We can't protect ourselves from the government protecting us from ourselves, which is the point Hillhater always tries to make and others agree with. But there are those here who don't WANT any of us protected from dangerous government.

 

[leisesturm]

People live to 100 because they were born 100 years ago. They didn't do ANYTHING special to live 100 years. Many of them tried hard not to but did anyway. Now look at all the things a person has to do just to live long enough to collect Social Security! I don't call that progress. I have kids I am NOT going to convince to get Level 4 water filtration like I have. I used an air filter during the wildfires but do not usually bother the rest of the year. And I eat ultra-healthy and both the wife and I lift heavy 3x/wk and I have a commercial rowing machine and the Mrs a commercial level treadmill. Still, we probably won't see 100. It's not what you do, its the megatons of crap you breathed, ate and drank for 30 years before you knew it was killing you. The Centenarians around us lived through World Wars and ate junk but they weren't bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty that no one knows exactly how lethal they are in even trace amounts.

I see that some want to have it both ways. Run the environment over the edge of the waterfall while protecting themselves from the crash in a pressure vessel. That can work for the individual case. Maybe. Like my neighbor with the generator. They don't care that extreme weather caused by Climate Change makes future power failures likely. They just don't want to be inconvenienced by one. Frock the next door neighbors that inhale the exhaust fumes and creesh couldn't they have bought one with a muffler?

Us Liberals don't want a world where we each have generators running night and day during a power failure. That will kill more people at the end of a week than the actual blackout. We think that some effort to curtail the use of ICE vehicles could benefit us all. We did not get to the top of the food chain by saying frock everyone else I'm taking care of me and maybe mine. But maybe not. One of my clients just kicked his old lady out right in the middle of a Pandemic. I have to think they were having problems long before May.

 

[Hillhater]

People live to 100 because they were born 100 years ago. They didn't do ANYTHING special to live 100 years. .....
...... The Centenarians around us lived through World Wars and ate junk but they weren't bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty that no one knows exactly how lethal they are in even trace amounts. ....

You thinking is mind blowing !....
Folks that are centenarians today, have ..”bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty ”..exactly the same as the rest of us AND worse ,.since they were alive through the first half of the 20th century before any real regulation of emissions.
.......and it has not limited their life span !
Do you have anymore brilliant thoughts like these ?

 

[leisesturm]

People live to 100 because they were born 100 years ago. They didn't do ANYTHING special to live 100 years. .....
...... The Centenarians around us lived through World Wars and ate junk but they weren't bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty that no one knows exactly how lethal they are in even trace amounts. ....

You thinking is mind blowing !....
Folks that are centenarians today, have ..”bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty ”..exactly the same as the rest of us AND worse ,.since they were alive through the first half of the 20th century before any real regulation of emissions.
.......and it has not limited their life span !
Do you have anymore brilliant thoughts like these ?

No! The Centenarians have NOT bathed in industrial pollutants for 100 years. 100 years ago there were not sophisticated detergents, solvents and etc. By the time those things came along their bodies were mature. When a young person comes in contact with a carcinogen BAM they are gone in as little as two years depending on genetics and whole lot of things I wouldn't know about.

When an older person comes in contact with the exact same agent the effects take much longer to manifest. Metabolic processes slow down drastically after age 25. And decrease exponentially after that. By 40 the same exposure that would kill a teenager in 10 years might not even be fatal. They may in fact die of natural causes. Older vehicle emissions were more visible, large particle, and volatile organics, etc. Modern cars are much 'cleaner' overall but 'fine particulate emissions' are particularly dangerous and modern cars still emit them. And there are more of them. When my parents arrived in this country in late 1958 there were less than 60 million cars on the road. When my twins were born in 1992 there were close to 300M. My parents spent their first 38 years in a country with no cars at all!!!!!! Their grandchildren have never spent a single day of their less than 30 years of life with less than 300M cars around. No, that won't have any effect at all on their longevity. What is mind blowing is that you need to be told this.

We can agree China is far more polluted than the U.S. At the same time that 1 in 12 American women were coming down with Breast Cancer ... the mid-70's maybe ... Breast Cancer was unknown in China. Completely unknown. It's there now, but, far below U.S. rates. Presently, in the U.S. the Breast Cancer incidence is now 1 in 8 women. That's right 1 in 12 ~'70, 1 in 8 ~'20 and the increase (roughly 1%/yr) is not slowing, despite Big Pharma's claims of breakthrough successes. China remains far behind U.S. rates despite their air pollution being some of the worst in the world. Part of the paradox might be because less of the appalling air pollution in China is due to vehicle emissions. More of it is the Coal Fired Powerplants in wide use.

You don't seem to have any sense of nuance. If it isn't somehow directly connected with Fossil Fuel you can't be bothered to think about it. Your big hang up with Solar energy is that the Sun goes down every night. Despite all the EVIDENCE that going after every gigaton of fossil fuel left in the ground will bring about human extinction sooner than otherwise, you are fatalistic enough to just march on because the Sun sets every night.

And, for the record. Since it seems to matter to you. Climate Change is 100% human caused! The kinds of temperature increases we are seeing would take 10,000 years to happen on their own. That is fact. Fact you want to deny. Your charts don't mean dick. If the Environmentalists had 1/1000th the budget that the Fossil Fuel lobby has access to they could do even better. But who pays Environmentalists? Much of it is volunteer effort. The FF lobby has trillions at its disposal.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Climate Change is 100% human caused!

I think that it's more like 80%. Things like solar cycles do matter, but as you noted we have accelerated and distorted small changes into large ones.

 

[neptronix]

Climate Change is 100% human caused!

I think that it's more like 80%. Things like solar cycles do matter, but as you noted we have accelerated and distorted small changes into large ones.

I have a feeling that both of you ignored the data at the beginning of the thread that shows natural variation can happen at a faster rate, at a greater intensity than what human impact is suspected to be responsible for.

Please do this thread a favor and post the data you have that shows climate change is 80-100% caused by human activity, ruling out natural influences as a cause.

I've been looking for this data for 2 decades so i'd love to see it.

 

[neptronix]

Older vehicle emissions were more visible, large particle, and volatile organics, etc. Modern cars are much 'cleaner' overall but 'fine particulate emissions' are particularly dangerous and modern cars still emit them. And there are more of them. When my parents arrived in this country in late 1958 there were less than 60 million cars on the road. When my twins were born in 1992 there were close to 300M. My parents spent their first 38 years in a country with no cars at all!!!!!! Their grandchildren have never spent a single day of their less than 30 years of life with less than 300M cars around. No, that won't have any effect at all on their longevity. What is mind blowing is that you need to be told this.

Correct, however we've had the technology to filter these ultrafine particles for over a century. Why does no home, work environment, etc include a cheap carbon filter which has scientifically proven it can remove these particles? Why do cars not include them? you can buy industrial environmental controls and fit them to your car - you'll notice a distinct lack of interest in that from not just the average person, but also the environmental activists.

The answer is that 99.9% of humans don't care. We live in an age where the world's information is at your fingertips, and people would rather beg the government than save themselves from the products they voluntarily chose to consume.. how's that workin' out for humanity?

Is this apathy or victimhood?

 

[Dauntless]

Is this apathy or victimhood?

You KNOW apathy is an entitlement just like welfare. Filters require personal responsibility, while blaming rich people and much of anyone else fills a need.

People live to 100 because they were born 100 years ago. They didn't do ANYTHING special to live 100 years. .....
...... The Centenarians around us lived through World Wars and ate junk but they weren't bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty that no one knows exactly how lethal they are in even trace amounts. ....

You thinking is mind blowing !....
Folks that are centenarians today, have ..”bathed in industrial chemicals so nasty ”..exactly the same as the rest of us AND worse ,.since they were alive through the first half of the 20th century before any real regulation of emissions.
.......and it has not limited their life span !
Do you have anymore brilliant thoughts like these ?

No! The Centenarians have NOT bathed in industrial pollutants for 100 years. 100 years ago there were not sophisticated detergents, solvents and etc. By the time those things came along their bodies were mature. When a young person comes in contact with a carcinogen BAM they are gone in as little as two years depending on genetics and whole lot of things I wouldn't know about.

So you're saying the unsophisticated lye cleaners were safer? What about those unsophisticated lead lubricants? Red lead, white lead, depending on usage. Applied with bare hands. Don't forget the torches melting it while the guy using had nothing but dark glasses to protect him.

In the late 19th century Standard Oil instituted that all chemical wastes were to be used in some way. Other plants continued to dump the unwanted gasoline and biproducts that would soon be making plastics into nearby rivers that were the water supply for cities downstream, bury them around aquifers, all kinds of things. People bathed in it, cooked with it, drank it.

Standard oil caused gasoline to replace kerosene and diesel as #1. It was so profitable creating markets for what others were idly polluting with that they drove competitors out of business. And the thanks they got for cleaning up the environment AND lowering prices was the government breaking them up.

So when I was 16 and getting my smog mechics license to work on presmog vehicles, I learned just how dirty those things were. At one time the common lawnmower was no worse than a car, maybe the same emissions per gallon. About 2000 they were saying 11 times the pollution per gallon, here the cars have gotten better since then but the lawnmowers Haven"t. Nor have the leaf blowers. Oh, that's when they're NEW. When I was 13 I bought a worn out mower for $3 and got it running again, puffing blue smoke as I collected wads of cash mowing lawns, mowing the lawn at home, getting to mow my own lawn with it, finally the low rpm at full throttle thing quit on me and a neighbor was watching, waiting, and came over with his that he'd replaced and I started pulling parts from mine and got his old mower going. (Someone else gave me his, too. This went on years longer.) They say some people with old mowers are creating more air pollution on Saturday than driving their car all week. Not me, I bought an electric before I registered here. And, er, gave away my lawnmower boneyard.

If someone today is 100 years old their PARENTS had been born into this, they were contaiminated in the womb.

Please do this thread a favor and post the data you have that shows climate change is 80-100% caused by human activity, ruling out natural influences as a cause.

They ARE their own data,, they laid it all out there for you. Basically using the same scientific method I'm using where I predict your response is 'Thats what I'm afraid of.'

I remind you this is why there are NO climate deniers but many disputors who fear these people will take a cure that's worse than the disease.

 

[neptronix]

You KNOW apathy is an entitlement just like welfare. Filters require personal responsibility, while blaming rich people and much of anyone else fills a need.

I don't apathy is an entitlement in itself. Entitlement is not even a good word.. an average environmental activist is ultimately asking the government to tax them to pay for what they want to see. You can't call it entitlement exactly, since it's ultimately mis-directing fulfilling the need to a third party in exchange for money. It's outsourcing.

You either have to eliminate the use of industrial technology or work harder to mitigate the effects of industrial technology.

Or as we should be doing here, instead of arguing whose opinion is better, is to develop cleaner technology, and utilize it.

I like the view of Greenpeace's founder ( who rethought his extremist stance decades ago )- instead of handing power and responsibility to central authority... how about we take that into our own hands? not a popular opinion, but the most practical one, if you are truly concerned about AGW, water pollution, etc etc.

 

[Dauntless]

You KNOW apathy is an entitlement just like welfare. Filters require personal responsibility, while blaming rich people and much of anyone else fills a need.

I don't apathy is an entitlement in itself. Entitlement is not even a good word.. an average environmental activist is ultimately asking the government to tax them to pay for what they want to see. You can't call it entitlement exactly, since it's ultimately mis-directing fulfilling the need to a third party in exchange for money. It's outsourcing.

I'm not sure if you're understanding that is satire or not. It's not supposed to be treated as an entitlement but extreme activism is its own form of apathy because it's all about blaming others. Just think, if you'd STOP buying their gas, charging your cellphones, boy, THAT would teach them.

But we've heard our whole lives about how the demonstrators blow dry their air. When I was a kid SNL would MAKE FUN of people saying that. Arguing is the only way they have of keeping blame where it belongs: ON SOMEONE ELSE!

And you hear them right here arguing that they just want SOMEONE ELSE to be taxed and the problem to go away.

Entitlement isn't supposed to be the word, but as my mom would say, 'Wake up and smell the coffee.' Entitlement IS the word. They won't let it NOT be, that's what makes it entitlement.

Right, left wingers?