Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I just think the earth's gotta do what the earth's gotta do, as it has always done.

In other words, "Enjoy your famine and war, everyone!  Too bad for you." 

But laughably, hypocritically still "pro-life", right?

Of course he is,right up to the second they pop out of the womb. Then they're on their own.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Of course he is,right up to the second they pop out of the womb. Then they're on their own.

No, you are, as usual, lying your simpering ass off - I have taken the utmost care of my children from the second they popped out of the womb up until the present day.

I was referring to the issue as a whole,you moron. You're the same jackass that supports the Republican party and as a result their day by day War on Women.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Of course he is,right up to the second they pop out of the womb. Then they're on their own.

Please, just this once, for the sake of change - stop lying.

Artie60438 wrote:

I was referring to the issue as a whole,you moron.

Then don't include me in your "issue as a whole", you congenital fucking liar.

Show us one instance where you've stood up against draconian Republican introduced legislation like requiring all women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. How about standing up to horrific cuts to programs like "Head Start" and food stamps? Any examples? How about your long history of cheering for closure of "Planned Parenhood" centers that provide women's health care services? Your move,liar!:bball:

PLEASE REPLY IN "Republicans War on Women" thread where I have re-posted it.

happy jack wrote:

I have taken the utmost care of my children from the second they popped out of the womb up until the present day.

'Cept for the whole global warming thing.  But, hey... it's only their future.  It seems that, similar to the pro-life debate, the Republican standard is still the bare minimum "just keep 'em breathin'" and never extends to the future.   In this particular case, that's a future where they'll continue to witness the ever increasing costs of the GOP's skepticism and denialism.  Here's to hoping they find your "I said, 'Sorry'" less disingenuous than as I do.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I have taken the utmost care of my children from the second they popped out of the womb up until the present day.

'Cept for the whole global warming thing.  But, hey... it's only their future.  It seems that, similar to the pro-life debate, the Republican standard is still the bare minimum "just keep 'em breathin'" and never extends to the future.   In this particular case, that's a future where they'll continue to witness the ever increasing costs of the GOP's skepticism and denialism.  Here's to hoping they find your "I said, 'Sorry'" less disingenuous than as I do.

Thanks, but I live with a crystal clear conscience, your sanctimonious attempts at guilt inducement notwithstanding.

Yeah. I'm sure that you do have a "clear conscience."  Anything can be justified when one engages in denial.

But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing sanctimonious about pointing out the truth... you are fucking guilty.

happy jack wrote:

You're calling it 'global warming' again?
Kinda risky, isn't it?
I thought the preferred term was now 'climate change'- you know, so no matter what the climate decides to do, you have all of your bases covered and can declare yourselves to be right.

Wow.  Really?  Did you just pull out Frank Luntz's demonstrable bullshit talking point?  

And yes, evolution is both theory and fact, in case you're confused about that.

Christ, I hope your children are smarter than you.

And no, your conscience is not clear if you can in anyway support the continued denial of AGW by the GOP.  As I pointed out above, the cost of their denial has very real economic and physical impacts.  Hopefully your children won't be the next sacrificed to the GOP's corporate gods.

Yeah. I'm sure that you do have a "clear conscience."  Anything can be justified when one engages in denial.

But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing sanctimonious about pointing out the truth... you are fucking guilty.[/quote]



If I am guilty of anything, then I am no more guilty than you.
We are both sitting here at our electrically powered computers, presumably burning lights while running our air conditioning units.
I am merrily posting away without a care in the world, while you are sourly posting away, condemning the evil of those who are doing exactly what you are doing, which is sucking up fossil fuels and blithely blowing their incinerated by-products into the atmosphere, thus contributing to the very problem that you are ranting about.
What's that word I'm looking for?
Oh, yeah - irony.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

And no, your conscience is not clear if you can in anyway support the continued denial of AGW by the GOP.

To the contrary, my conscience is quite clear.
I neither support nor denounce.
I simply ignore.

And that's the problem, jack.  To paraphrase an old saying, "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral." (No pun intended)

In the grand scheme of things, the amount of energy that you or I use is largely irrelevant. The real issue is how that energy is produced, and neither of us individually have enough control over that to make much of a difference.  It will take collective action to force Congress to act on this issue and that can never happen as long as there is a denialist movement that stops anything from getting done.

The reason that I say that you're guilty is that you are certainly not part of the solution, so you are part of the problem.  Hell, you can't even bring yourself to admit that the climate problem exists... you won't even acknowledge it on a discussion forum.  

You've been presented with irrefutable evidence that global warming exists, and is caused by man.  You didn't even have to look for the truth. It's been presented to you "on a platter." Yet for some reason, you choose to ignore the evidence.  To me, that either means that you're intellectually dishonest, lazy, or simply ignorant.  

Perhaps your problem is a question of mental ability.  If it is, then I apologize.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral."

Then I guess I have dibs on that very special place.
Remaining neutral, by its very definition, makes one neither part of the problem nor part of the solution.
My position of neutrality means that if you choose to saddle me with a certain measure of guilt for not being part of the solution, then you must credit me with an equal measure of virtue for not being part of the problem.
So, in my book, that's a wash.
And my conscience remains crystal clear.

That post is complete and utter horse shit. In the case of global warming it's the "neutrality" (continued non-action) that is the cause of the problem.  

Still can't bring yourself to even admit that global warming exists and is caused by man, can you?  Judging by your recent posts, I'm finally beginning to understand why... you really are in denial.

It's time to grow up and face reality, Jack.

happy jack wrote:

If I am guilty of anything, then I am no more guilty than you.

Also not true.  

While the rest of us are trying to discuss, find, and implement solutions, you and your ilk won't even acknowledge the problem, ensuring we'll never find them let alone implement them at a level where it will actually matter on a planetary scale and to future generations.  Yes, "we are both sitting here at our electrically powered computers, presumably burning lights while running our air conditioning units", but we do that because a) even our immediate suicides wouldn't make a measurable cut in emissions, and b) there aren't any fucking alternatives. We've had the information demonstrating the need for change for decades, in terms of civilizations physical limitations, its energy use, and the dangers of global warming, but we haven't been able to get past the collective "Meh..." stage thanks in no small part to the constant and useless denial of AGW by the GOP, its general anti-science stance, and their poorly educated voters like yourself who still scoff at the idea of holding them accountable.  It's absolutely remarkable such an adamantly pro-life individual like yourself still can't seem to give a flying fuck that AGW is literally killing people.

The tobacco industry and their GOP lackeys lived remarkably guilt free in their denial that smoking killed people, but that didn't make the lung cancer any less deadly. While you may live comfortably in your ignorance, you're still doing a profound disservice to your children. No amount of denial will change that fact.

happy jack wrote:

I'll have to beg to differ with you on that one.
If everyone who is now burning lights, running their AC units, driving their cars, etc., chose to commit immediate suicide, emissions would drop to virtually zero, other than those gases emanating from their rotting corpses.

Um...  wow.  Did you really just suggest mass suicide as a solution to global warming?  That's... pretty amazing, actually.  That's an impressive level of douchebaggery even Inhofe hasn't reached yet.  Kudos!    Please tell me you don’t make healthcare suggestions to family members who have been diagnosed with a potentially terminal illness…

happy jack wrote:

So, you do have the option of going that route...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, mass suicide of the human race is not a feasible solution to global warming.  But I’m totally willing to give it a try if you are, but your family first.  Given how intellectually dishonest your arguments are, I’m going to have a very hard time taking you at your word.  But anyway, back to my point:

I wrote:

Yes, "we are both sitting here at our electrically powered computers, presumably burning lights while running our air conditioning units", but we do that because a) even our immediate suicides wouldn't make a measurable cut in emissions...

The "our" I was referring to was the same "we" you were referring to in the quote I used, not the entirety of the human race.  I thought it was obvious, but apparently not.  Regardless, my point remains - my immediate death would not in any measurable way impede AGW.  But more to your point, nor would the immediate death of everyone concerned about AGW.  If all that was left was individuals like you, so callously unconcerned about such a very real threat, what's left of human society would continue to grow and consume, and emissions would continue to increase.  Sure, there would be an immediate shortfall, but if such a loss of life doesn't collapse the system, it would quickly grow back to current levels and eventually surpass them.  Such is the very simple arithmetic of exponential growth.  So, no, it's not a solution at all.  Glad to see you thought your stupid, specious argument all the way through.

But honestly... even suggesting the death of my family as a solution in the first place?  Shame on you.  Kind of a dick move.  

I see... so you expect Heretic to be willing to kill himself to solve "the problem" (even though he specifically and correctly pointed out that his "immediate death would not in any measurable way impede AGW"), and yet you don't have the chops to even admit (or deny) that global warming exists, and is caused by man, on a discussion board?

That's pretty pathetic, jack.

happy jack wrote:

I guess it just depends upon how serious you really are about doing your part to solve this problem.
Apparently, not very serious, so long as you are the one being asked to make the necessary sacrifices.

 

Repeating it doesn't make the math work, happy.  Your point is demonstrably false and laughably inane.  Suicide is no more a solution to global warming than it is to cancer or terrorism.  Clearly the issue isn't some useless hippy dippy “save the earth” bullshit, but rather the very real question of how we, as a country, civilization, or species, survive it (or at the very least how we prevent it from ruining the economy).  It’s not a terribly complicated concept for anyone over the age of four to understand.  But seriously...  The entire realm of AGW skepticism and all you offer is “If you think it's so bad, kill yourself”?  Yeah, intellectually dishonest and lazy...

I found this whine was particularly interesting...

happy jack wrote:

...rather than simply lecturing and haranguing everyone else in order to get your way on a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do basis.

...given that I haven't suggested doing much more than merely taking the threat seriously and suggested idiots like happy stop voting for AGW deniers and creationists.  I've certainly don't remember endorsing any particular policy, tax, plan, etc., and remember pointing out repeatedly that a) I don't have any solutions, and b) no solution will succeed unless its based on fact.

And it's also interesting to note that happy, in pure partisan fashion, hasn't condemned the ever increasing number of conservatives who simply cannot deny reality anymore, like these Eli Lehrer and Chris Ladd, for instance:

Climate Change for the GOP

Quote :

President Barack Obama’s climate agenda announced last week represents the latest of many Democratic party efforts to address climate change. Although it includes no new legislation, the president’s plan makes unprecedented use of executive branch powers and offers a great many things that appeal to core Democratic constituencies.

. . .

It doesn’t have to be this way. Rather than pretend climate change isn’t a problem, there are ample opportunities for Republicans to point out the obvious flaws in the left’s plans to deal with it and offer alternatives of their own. In short, conservatives can take a page from the liberal playbook and use the climate change issue to push policies that they favor anyway.

. . .

In any case, focusing on the science can be something of a dead end. The scientific consensus that exists about the causes and effects of climate change can’t point to an optimal policy solution any more than improvements in heart surgery techniques can provide guidance on health care reform.

Indeed, if free-market conservatives really want evidence of climate change, they ought to look towards the insurance markets that would bear much of the cost of catastrophic climate change. All three of the major insurance modeling firms and every global insurance company incorporate human-caused climate change into their projections of current and future weather patterns. The big business that has the most to lose from climate change, and that would reap the biggest rewards if it were somehow solved tomorrow, has universally decided that climate change is a real problem. An insurance company that ignored climate change predictions could, in the short term, make a lot of money by underpricing its competition on a wide range of products. Not a single firm has done this.

The danger in Republican climate denial

Quote :

The Earth’s climate is getting warmer and our carbon emissions are a factor in that heating. There is no credible scientific consensus that questions those two facts.

We must stop wheeling in crank “scientists” who deploy tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry to “debunk” the credible research on climate change. Once we accept those two undisputed realities there is an absolute wonderland of ambiguities waiting. That is the realm where real uncertainty lies and where the policy response to climate change can still be shaped.

For example how much, exactly, of the Earth’s warming can be attributed to human activity? Perhaps most of it, but no precise figure can be agreed on. How much warmer will it get and under what circumstances? Three researchers can give you five answers.

Let’s not forget the most troubling unanswered question: How much do we need to reduce our carbon output to achieve a specific decline in warming? No one can respond with confidence, let alone precision. Some scientists expect that regardless what action we take, it may take centuries to mitigate the impact of human-influence on climate change.

So how do we address policy questions like whether to implement a carbon tax? Conservatives will lose the credibility required to even participate in that and other policy debates if we continue to tolerate the absurd notion that climate change is a hoax.

On a political level, Republicans must not confuse climate change with other science vs. belief issues. On this issue public opinion will eventually move in the direction of established facts regardless of how much distortion we generate.

We can give hedged answers on the age of the universe with little consequence. Denying the reality of evolution won’t cause anyone to lose their favorite beach house, or for that matter, their favorite island. Climate change, on the other hand, is becoming apparent enough to the average layman to affect their holiday plans. We cannot swim against this scientific tide much longer.

When public opinion comes into line with the established science, our denialist position will cost us our opportunity to participate in shaping policy. We are setting ourselves up for a sudden, catastrophic political collapse which could spread beyond this single issue.

No cries from happy for their suicide (or any of the other conservatives I’ve cited in this thread)...  just mine.  Keepin' it classy.

The upside is that if happy's children are a fraction as intelligent as he claims (assuming they exist), they'll easily be able to recognize the GOP's denial as political suicide and they'll recognize him as the soon-to-be-extinct Republican dinosaur that he is.  He’s well on his way to becoming the ridiculous curmudgeon tolerated by his family at Thanksgiving and Christmas and then mocked the other 363.

But at least happy's finally admitted he's pro-abortion, too.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I see... so you expect Heretic to be willing to kill himself to solve "the problem" (even though he specifically and correctly pointed out that his "immediate death would not in any measurable way impede AGW"), and yet you don't have the chops to even admit (or deny) that global warming exists, and is caused by man, on a discussion board?

That's pretty pathetic, jack.

If allegedly saving the earth is a higher priority than allowing humanity to exist, mass suicide is certainly a possible solution.
Do your version of the math:
Earth + Humanity = Global Warming
Earth - Humanity = No Global Warming

Wow.  You really haven't been paying attention, have you?  The Earth is not in danger here.  It's Humanity (our civilization) that's in danger.   So your "math" is totally irrelevant to the question.