Immortality only 20 years away.
- Thread starter MyOwnDemon
- Start date
Those well-studied climatologists are also WELL-FUNDED. Scientists are smart enough to know where the money's at. Climatologists that openly question global warming lose their place in the circle jerk.
Name the process. Is it due to some kind of increase in refraction? Is it a molecular phenomenon (co2 absorbing different wavelengths for example)? is it reducing the black body radiations radiative activity? is it storing more electrical energy (somehow)?
You cant answer these questions. I dont expect you to be able to answer them. Its not your job. But neither do the "climatologists". They just make crap up and draw pictures. When a physicist finds a process in nature that conflicts with theory, hell try to explain it. The climatologists dont do that. They just tell stories about climate change. Theyre phony failures who rent their phds out to governments so as to give the lies some credibility.
Maybe theyre right, but what they do aint science.
Lol man, common cold is not a single disease. It's like saying we'll be glad if we cure cancer in 20 years. You can't cure cancer. These are names for a bunch of very specific diseases. What we will do is hit them one by one until there's none left. When will this happen? Considering exponential properties of technological advances it might be sooner than you might expect.
There's evidence to suggest that both humans have sped up global warming, and also that we're part of a natural cycle that's going on.
I could find you many a study on each, just google them.
Arguing it is pointless. We know that CO2 warms the atmosphere, you just have to look at what happened to Venus to see that. What we don't know is whether the amount of CO2 that humans are producing is in fact significant enough to have an impact on our atmosphere in the long term.
There's too many variables, it's a highly complicated process that scientists do not fully understand.
To further complicate matters, oil is big business. Oil companies will pay for any research that proves that global warming isn't caused by our CO2 emissions.
Likewise, there's commercial interest in moving to greener fuel methods, etc.. And funding studies to prove the opposite.
I think it makes sense to try and minimise our impact on the environment, and produce less CO2, but I'm not convinced by lots of the horror stories that are put out, which just make good television.
There are much bigger reasons (e.g. peak oil) to look to move to renewable energy than CO2 emissions too, IMO.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that your ad hominem hasty generalization comment about the makers of a particular National Geographic video was meant to be interpreted as an "argument" against the accuracy of the content contained in that video.
The greenhouse effect has been studied since the 1800s. If there were still questions about its "basics" or if anyone was just making crap up, the skeptic scientists would be all over it.
Instead :
Dr. Lindzen* accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate...
Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters - NYTimes.com
*Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen
Lulz, and why then you did you feel the need to infer that the NatGeo people have character flaws?
Why is overpopulation an issue? If we're going to live forever, whats a few decades in a space ship to a life supporting planet? Or why couldn't we program the nanobots to utilize atmospheres of other planets so could inhabit them?
Not that I'm going to argue that overpopulation will never be an issue, (There are some cases that it may be) but the idea of relieving population here on Earth by moving it to another planet is silly to say the least.
Each person you transport is going to take an ungodly amount of fuel/resources to transport there. In today's dollars, transporting a human from earth to venus (Closer than mars) would cost in the trillions of dollars.
Of course that price will come down but it'll always remain a privilge for the richest of society, and even moreso in a world filled with multiple times as many people sharing earthly resources.
Perhaps once the transporter beam is perfected?
All those arguments are perfectly relevant today. I'm talking about 100-200 years from now.
