Datasets:

bartoszmaj

/

topics_labelled

like 0

comment

c0i6hn4

2qh9z

health

https://old.reddit.com/r/Health/comments/al63w/stop_overusing_antibiotics_on_healthy_farm/c0i6hn4/

Pretty silly that you label something "scientifically questionable" just because you disagree, no? I have done extensive research into this topic and none of the arguments for "sustainable" meat hold any weight. If you want animal protein, stick to farm-raised bay mollusks and farm-raised freshwater herbivorous fish -- they're the only types of animal farming that can be done on a moderately large scale sustainably. Unless you're calling the existence of human-caused climate change "scientifically questionable," in which case, yes -- there's no need to continue any discussion.

comment

c0i6g67

2qh9z

health

https://old.reddit.com/r/Health/comments/al63w/stop_overusing_antibiotics_on_healthy_farm/c0i6g67/

You're neglecting to factor in climate change. The entire agricultural belt in California is predicted to become much less prosperous in the next 40 years due to rising temperatures and a decrease in soil quality. Meat, whether it's CAFO or pasture-raised, is a result of an inefficient process of feeding plant matter to animals. One of the byproducts of this is methane -- a greenhouse gas 26x more potent than CO2. Another is ammonia -- the cause of acid rain. Both of these will result in decreased crop yields in the years to come. Cutting your meat and dairy intake now can help prevent this from happening while also giving you a realistic look at what our diets are going to need to look like in the near future. I'd rather make changes now to spare future generations than be known as the assholes who continued to screw up the planet after they realized what was happening. ETA: Meat-eaters give vegetarians constant flak for not eating meat and you know that. It goes both ways, it's just that there are quite different motivations.

comment

c0i6g0x

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al41s/full_body_scanners_pushed_by_homeland_security/c0i6g0x/

Absolutely, more people should. But it's funny how the visible types on the right will smear lefties if they ever stand to profit from from an agenda they're pushing as an easy way of turning their followers against that agenda without dismissing it on its actual merits (Al Gore doesn't really care about saving the earth, he only says climate change is bad to make money off his investment in such-and-such company), yet when it comes out that a Republican politician or operative like Chertoff is doing the same thing, they find some way to dismiss that criticism as irrelevant and keep pushing the agenda. That's one thing I see in dyed-in-the-wool Fox News Republicans... they can criticize Dems for something, but can figure out a way to brand examples of Republicans doing the same thing as irrelevant on some ground. For example, I learned from one that Sen. McCain can be critical of Sen. Franken for his objection to a Senator finishing his remarks, but Sen. McCain doing the exact same thing years earlier to another Senator has no bearing whatsoever on Sen. McCain's criticism. In this example, when really backed into a corner, they can still play the national security "why do you hate America?" card to claim that even with the conflict of interest, who cares, Mr. Chertoff is right, we still need thousands of these machines to keep terrorists from trying to blow up an airplane once every eight years. I think the biggest problem is that news outlets push someone like Mr. Chertoff in this example based on his credentials as a former Secretary of Homeland Security, like they're just a knowledgeable ex-government type with a concern and a solution they're advocating. It's completely glossed over that, essentially, Mr. Chertoff is acting as a paid spokesperson for the company that manufactures the solution he's advocating and using his credentials as an argument to authority. It's nothing more than plugola, really, but it being dressed as news speaks to the problems with media these days.

comment

c0i6ezz

2qh1s

economics

https://old.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/ak170/michael_c_ruppert_scares_the_crap_out_of_me/c0i6ezz/

>THe former usually follows the latter with a couple of decades of lag-time to work the bugs out. You are confusing experimentation with production after you just accused me of doing so. Experimentation is where you work the bugs out. Production is where you build them. The IFR is already at the point of having all of the bugs worked out and the LFTR is very close. These could be produced in a couple of years if the government pushed it. Besides, we already have very good technology in light water reactors that can be built up immediately. Your claims about uranium-235 running out doesn't apply in the short term and by the time it happens we will have the breeders deployed. >Of course, the other part of it, the nuclear boosters are all begging for money. Given enough money, anything is possible. Well, it is certainly a better investment than anything else for dealing with climate change and peak oil. Renewables don't provide enough energy and have a shitty capacity factor (which means that a wind/solar buildup to replace coal will also require a buildup of natural gas to back it up). And asking industrial society to use less energy is like asking a fat kid to stop eating chocolate. Nuclear is the most pragmatic way forward. It is difficult, but we are already in a very difficult situation. >And where do you get the money? Well, of course, you print it, where else? This is you interjecting your personal opinions in the conversation that have nothing to do with the topic. Governments can fund things in three ways: raise taxes, borrow, or print. They *rarely* use printing as a first resort. This is just libertarian propaganda.

comment

c0i6e1p

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al05s/ukfunded_research_shows_climate_change_has_caused/c0i6e1p/

Don't worry, with climate change the diseases, pests, invasive species and insects will come to you.

comment

c0i6cmg

2qzb6

iama

https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/akrna/i_am_a_debunker_of_911_conspiracy_theories_ama/c0i6cmg/

You have a naive vision of media ownership. The idea that literally all major media outlets are controlled by some hidden Dr. Evil is laughable. Any newspaper that broke the story of Holocaust fraud would be guaranteed a Pulitzer prize. Look at historical scandals like Watergate; what do you suppose that did for the Washington Post's sales? And that's just in the US. What you're also asserting is that the media in Germany, Austria and Poland are also part of a conspiracy going against their own national interests that prevents them from exonerating themselves in one of the greatest crimes in the 20th century. Impressive. Further, you're apparently lumping universities in with the media. Any budding historian would set the world on fire if he wrote a PhD thesis proving the Holocaust was a lie. I guess all professors are also controlled by this hidden organization? And how is it that literally every media outlet and all academic institutions in multiple nations all flawlessly perpetrate this gigantic Holocaust lie and yet can't pull it off in areas that are vastly more important to them? One example would be climate change. Every major industry would love for this issue to be suppressed, and for oil companies it's literally an existential threat. According to the world you're imagining, there should be a deafening silence on the subject, with just a few brave souls shouting the truth but denounced by the corporate media as crackpots. You have to ask yourself why there is such a vigorous debate on this topic yet absolute unanimity on the Holocaust. Anyway, I know literally nothing I can say will have you look critically at this subject, so how about I make my final comment something positive: you mentioned upthread you were a pacifist. That's very cool and commendable. Kudos. (EDIT: changed accidental reference to Nobel in first paragraph to the Pulitzer, a prize for journalism).

comment

c0i6b3y

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al1li/does_it_seem_to_you_that_so_much_of_what_were/c0i6b3y/

We have lots of unsolved problems that need to be taken care of sooner rather than later (climate change, wars, nuclear weapons, possibility of asteroid, etc.) I feel guilty when I spend my life knowing this, but just having fun, knowing I can have fun while working to influence things in the right direction. It's the millions of people that say, "who cares?" every day, that worry me the most.

comment

c0i6858

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/al71c/in_october_1999_pbs_alone_took_the_controversial/c0i6858/

y2k didn't fuck everything up monumentally because people acted upon the information... despite people acting upon the known bug: * Bank customers were left stranded without access to their own money. * Radiation monitoring equipment failed * Nuclear power plants had glitches * The U.S. Naval Observatory which runs the master clock that keeps the country's official time failed, displaying the time as 01/01/19100 * Communications companies had glitches resulting in large amounts of lost customer data Now, I know you're trying to concoct some kind of parallel between Y2K and climate change (it's as transparent as you can get) but A) Y2K only avoided causing significant problems because of due diligence. and B) anyone who's ever run a website of any substantial size has received "death threats"

comment

c0i65we

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al7f7/in_a_world_growing_ever_hotter_huancavelica_is_an/c0i65we/

Assuming that your 'WTF' is for the anomaly, remember that the main issue is Climate Change. A basic, nutshell answer: The climates of the world's regions are all interconnected (ocean currents, jet streams, etc.), and if there is radical change in one area, other regions experience the effects. A general rise in global temps melts glaciers, causes (among other things) an influx of colder, fresh water, and boom, Mother Nature adjusts as she must to regain some sort of equilibrium.

comment

c0i64lx

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al7il/has_the_left_missed_the_boat_on_climate_change/c0i64lx/

The left? Missed the article that gave a first hand account of China opposing it 100% and thus killing it? Sorry, but communism is against climate change. Anyone else against it is therefore a communist. So all republicans are now Chinese communists.

comment

c0i63tn

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al74u/global_warming_deniers_step_up_efforts_to/c0i63tn/

I have a friend who is an atmospheric scientist at UC Davis and he claims that he has been offered big bucks to provide research disproving global climate change. This was at least 5 years ago. No proof, all word of mouth, but it doesn't suprise me if this actually does occur.

comment

c0i5z97

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al7il/has_the_left_missed_the_boat_on_climate_change/c0i5z97/

why did climate change stop with copenhagen?

comment

c0i5xn6

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al6f4/whats_the_best_science_nonfiction_book_that_you/c0i5xn6/

[Reconstructing Quaternary Environments](http://www.amazon.com/Reconstructing-Quaternary-Environments-John-Lowe/dp/0582101662) By John Lowe and Mike Walker. Gives a great framework for understanding climate change and climatological science.

comment

c0i5ueo

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al4aw/is_there_any_way_to_actively_campaign_against/c0i5ueo/

You might also like a book by Charles Pierce called "idiot America." pierce connects the intelligent design and climate change debates stucturally to the way the tobacco companies obscured research about the negative health effects of smoking. There are also depressing and insightful discussions of terri schiavo and the tv show 24.

comment

c0i5ue9

2qhpm

vegan

https://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/al56t/vegetarians_who_start_eating_meat_and_try_to/c0i5ue9/

There's always the environmental and efficiency arguments against rearing animals for mass consumption. The environmental case goes something like this: Farmland is scarce and in order to meet the demand for meat non-farmland i.e. forest ecosystems get harvested and turned into farmland. A thriving community gets demolished and turned into a mono culture. This decrease in biodiversity increases the risk of ecological collapse. Furthermore, this new environment does not retain as much CO2 because there are less trees, shrubbery etc. aka adds to the global climate change problem. Finally, the amount of waste produced by the animals i.e. poop is often mismanaged and ends up in the water table/.local river i.e. our drinking water. Efficiency argument goes something like this: A lot of the malnutrition in the world comes from lack of protein consumption. If there was only one acre of land available to a farmer who wanted to maximize protein in order to combat malnutrition he or she would be better off raising beans instead of beef. Here's the math: Note I used excel for everything so the final numbers are in fact “pure” however, the numbers calculated here are rounded. Rounding shouldn’t be an issue though. Average number beef cattle farms in U.S. 2007 687,540 Average number of acres per farm 2008 418 Total (average) number of cattle farming acres in U.S. 287,391,720 Total number of Cattle in U.S. 2008 103,300,000 Average number of Cattle per acre 0.36 Sources: http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/CMDocs/BeefProduction/FactSheet_EfficiencyOfAmericanAgriculture.pdf http://www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org/CMDocs/BeefProduction/FactSheet_CattleIndustryWhoWeAre.pdf http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp Assuming a 1200 pound steer there is an average of 518 pounds of edible meat. http://www.angus.org/Pub/beefchart.pdf This means there is about 187 pounds of meat per acre. Using the following nutritional facts for beef http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3477/2 and the resulting 25% protein per pound of beef It relates to about 47 pounds of protein per acre. Now lets look at soy beans http://www.ers.usda.gov/News/SoyBeanCoverage.htm Average number of acres of soybeans in 2007 64.7 million acres Average number of bushels produced in 2007 2,677 million bushels Average bushel per acre 41 A bushel weighs 60 lbs http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G4020 http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/bushels.html Total (average) number of pounds of soybeans per acre 2483 lbs of soybeans Using the following nutritional facts for soybeans : http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4376/2 and the resulting 9.7% protein per lb of soybeans The total number of protein per acre of soybean is 242 lbs of protein per acre Soybeans are about 5.2 times more efficient at providing protein not per pound, but per acre than beef.

comment

c0i5qk3

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al5tk/a_cbc_radio_interview_with_james_lovelock_known/c0i5qk3/

Yeah, rather than listen to Lovelock tell me how great his hypothesis is, I went and did some research a while back and discovered it's been rubbished by numerous scientists, including Dawkins, Gould and other eminent experts. That's not to say there's some good stuff in there, but the 'mysticism' is just unnecessary. There's a reason only one person is pushing his hypothesis. Also, a lot of his pronouncements on climate change are wrong. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/james-lovelocks-gloomy-vision/

comment

c0i5j2l

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al1f1/my_prediction_is_that_in_another_ten_years_we/c0i5j2l/

- The US dollar will lose its status as the world's most important currency. The new currency will either be the Euro, or some global currency. - 1 € will be worth more than $3. - The financial crisis will be mostly over and forgotten - meaning that since the cause for this crisis has not been removed (unregulated financial markets), the next one will happen eventually (but not within 10 years), but some countries will be better prepared than others... - ITER, LHC, and various projects by ESA will receive much more widespread recognition in the world, so that the US will no longer be seen as the world leader in science. As a response, the US will invest much larger amounts of money in education in science, which will help it a lot in the long run, but not enough to get back to 1st place. At the same time, China will also invest even huger amounts of money in scientists, and will make plans for its own supercollider and fusion experiment, trying to become the worlds number one in science as well. - Surprisingly little will have changed about Linux, Windows and Macs. - Computer games will look somewhat more realistic, but more importantly, there will be a much greater variety, and many small handheld devices like mobile phones will support a wide range of those games. - Facebook and "Google Society" (the new social networking application from Google, compatible with... everything) will have an option to automatically update someones geographic location based on GPS (or Galileo) data sent from that persons mobile phone, which can be made available to friends and other people. This option will be used very frequently to arrange spontaneous hook ups and meetups, and will occasionally be abused for crimes like burglary and rape. - Identity theft and similar crimes will be extremely common - Illegal filesharing will be about as common as today - America, and probably even China will take actions against climate change and the destruction of the environment, some of them very radical. These will be accepted as necessary by most people, but the opposition will be more radical than today, similar to G8 protesters.

comment

c0i5h4i

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/al3pm/students_snowed_in_for_two_days_at_highest_pub_in/c0i5h4i/

Evil extensive flooding in the low land areas , due in the earlier March/April spring thaw is it ? Can we expect climate change denialists in 5, 4 , 3 ............ ?

comment

c0i5gtl

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/al41s/full_body_scanners_pushed_by_homeland_security/c0i5gtl/

Funny how the wingnuts on the right are silent, but if Al Gore stands to make one penny from climate change legislation...

comment

c0i5glg

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/al1f1/my_prediction_is_that_in_another_ten_years_we/c0i5glg/

Things where I disgaree: - Extrapolating current hard drive prices, disk hard drives will still be cheaper in 2020, relative to their capacity. However, there won't be a lot of demand for 200 TB hard drivers, therefore fast-access 32 TB SSD drives will be more common. - Processors will have have MANY more than 64-cores (a Radeon 5870 already has 1600 cores!) and those processors will do different tasks. There will be ~ 8 or 16 cores like we know it, and then at least 8192 very simple parallel cores (like in GPUs) for massive floating point operation power. However, these will be grouped in some way, for example, 16 clusters, with 32 processors each, each of which can do 16 floating point operations at the same time - all on a single chip. - SSD will NOT replace RAM - There will be no major funding for a lunar colony - We will not see the detonation of a nuke What I would like to add: - Moore's law will slow down somewhat (~around 25-40%) - The US will either turn super tolerant towards the rest of the world - or go in the very opposite direction. I think there is no room for a middle ground - 1 € will be worth at least $3, but probably more than $5. - Europe will be caught in an identity crisis, but economically, it will be the most stable region in the world - Europe and the US will get somewhat closer to one another diplomatically, while China will cause various minor diplomatic confrontations, leading to various sanctions against China which in turn force China to fall more in line with what Europe and the US want. - Europe will continue to be the leader on technologies related to climate change, environmental protection and so on, but the US and China will invest large amounts of money to catch up

comment

c0i5b6v

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akzuz/this_month_a_poll_of_3000_americans_showed_49/c0i5b6v/

Americans have bigger problems. We don't even have control over our own country.. How can we be expected to do something about climate change?

comment

c0i5ayk

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al1eg/who_are_the_climate_change_skeptics/c0i5ayk/

I don't think you know what "straw man" means. However, you are guilty of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacious argument. The uncomfortable reality for you Deniers - oh, sorry - 'sceptics' is that there are as almost as many opinions on why global warming is not real or not dangerous as there are Deniers - oops, 'sceptics'. It's a big clue that you're wrong. As for the blog you linked to, it's no further forward in refuting climate change science than any of the other thousands of blogs out there. EDIT - And one enduring quality of McIntyre and his blog is that he is [very often wrong](http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm).

comment

c0i5awm

2qhqb

unitedkingdom

https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/al3h6/3500_turbines_would_be_built_across_the_uk_in_the/c0i5awm/

Mitigating Climate Change? Not in **my** back yard, you won't. [/Middle England]

comment

c0i573a

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al3qj/hey_reddit_whats_your_best_rebuttal_for_people/c0i573a/

So you actually believe that our C02 emissions are going to cause some sort of apocalyptic cycle on Earth???? LOL. I hate to inform you that global warming is a conspiracy theory and to label as PROVEN at talk as if you are somehow in the "KNOW". Global Warming is a political agenda that will be used to impose restrictions on the freedoms we currently enjoy and it stands to make alot of very wealthy people a lot of money thru legislation. Follow the money and you will find your Global Warming agenda. Climate Change is unprovable and at best Junk Science and to think there is some kind of apocalyptic threat to our society based on CO2 emissions is so silly that it's a farce that people actually put faith in it.

comment

c0i56qs

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/aknp0/on_issues_like_global_warming_and_evolution/c0i56qs/

> One would have to assume that all water vapor adds to climate change in a way that increases global temperature. There are forms of water vapor that act as negative feedbacks. For example, water vapor (clouds) also reflect sunlight & thus cool the earth. It works both ways. Low clouds reflect sunlight, and thus cool the earth. High thin clouds however trap IR, and thus contribute to warming. Did you ever observe that cloudy nights are usually warmer than clear nights? I was however talking about the direct greenhouse effect of water vapor, which works similar to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). > If you heat the earth (via CO2 or any other way) the warmer air will hold more water vapor and thus cause more warming and thus cause more water vapor and so on until we reach some stability or infinity. There does not have to be runaway effect. For example, 1 degree may cause an additional 0.5 degrees 1.5 total), that another 0.25 (1.75 total) again and so on. It will never be more than 2 degrees in total. > As far as I'm aware, this mentality wasn't applied to the naturally produced warming from the early 20th century (up to the 40s) when building the climate models that project worriesome AGW. That is to say, it wasn't expected that the warming from the high solar output in the 20th century would cause large feedbacks (locked in and likely to be seen only later in the 20th c) due to water vapor. You are wrong. If warming were caused by higher solar output, we would see the same feedback. Also, the feedback is almost immediate in both cases. It takes about 50 days for water vapor in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium. You can compare the [initial forcings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing) by CO2 and solar changes. Those can be calculated. The solar changes are overwhelmed by the forcings by CO2. See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing).Therefore the feedbacks caused by CO2 are also much greater than those caused by solar changes.

comment

c0i56pp

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al3zg/nations_made_limited_progress_at_copenhagen/c0i56pp/

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said nations made “limited progress” at the Copenhagen climate-change summit and no one was satisfied with the outcome. “There is no escaping the truth that the nations of the world have to move to a low greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient development path,” Singh told delegates attending the Indian Science Congress in the southern city of Thiruvananthapuram today, according to an e-mailed statement from his office.

comment

c0i56n5

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al3qj/hey_reddit_whats_your_best_rebuttal_for_people/c0i56n5/

Switch the argument to the more accurate term "Climate Change", which is far easier to prove and demonstrate with examples.

comment

c0i560b

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al3qj/hey_reddit_whats_your_best_rebuttal_for_people/c0i560b/

> Asking me to explain why I believe we're affecting climate change without repeating what other people have said is impossible because I didn't gather any data or do any field research myself. Exactly. > That doesn't mean it's invalid. Perhaps. But that also means there are no excuses for dismissing all skepticism immediately. > Can you explain Hawking Radiation without referencing, even indirectly, the work of Stephen Hawking? When Stephen Hawking starts insisting that his science means that he should be able to make major economic policy changes, and that a failure to allow him to do this dooms humankind, I'll worry about this.

comment

c0i55yf

2qhkd

energy

https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/al1fv/can_someone_please_explain_to_me_why_this_effect/c0i55yf/

Because the energy source promises to be intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable, too far from the needs for electric power, and too expensive compared with readily available alternatives. Likely, even for free at the source, just from transmission cost, the cost would be to high. And, no significant electric grid would want to try to handle the dangerous grid instability issues from the unpredictable source, even if the energy were delivered for free. That electric energy source solves no existing problem because, thankfully from some magnificent engineering over the past 100 years, electric energy is not a problem, and here is some of why: In the US, electric energy at the plant from coal costs less than 3 cents per kWh and nuclear, 2 cents. From the 'WSJ' in August, the US wholesale price of electric energy was 0.4 cents per kWh and has been comfortably under 1 cent since year 2000. This is for solidly reliable energy, close to the users. For some source, more expensive, unreliable, a long way from the users, f'get about it. The screaming about the importance of 'clean, renewable, carbon-free' energy is just a made-up, flim-flam, scam, fraud effort to get money and power from you -- good evidence below. Here is some very good news: For your concerns about 'carbon' and humans overheating the planet, f'get about it! Below I give evidence with good references in parts (A) through (F). Net, the concerns about significant, harmful global warming caused by humans is 100% a flim-flam, scam, fraud that serves the interests of (1) Al Gore who wants fame or whatever, (2) nearly all 'climate scientists' who want to get grant money (no 'crisis', no grant money), (3) some people in business who want to sell equipment that is too expensive and without screams of 'global warming' would sell little or nothing (wind turbines, solar panels, smart grid controls), (4) people in government who want to get money by raising taxes and get power from new laws, (5) much of the media, e.g., NYT, WoPo, LAT, NBC, who want a non-stop stream of 'stories', cheap and easy to write, to grab people by the gut, to get eyeballs for ads for ad revenue, (6) some venture capital partners eager to create a stock market bubble for 'clean energy' stocks, and possibly a few more. To debunk the screaming, here is some evidence in parts (A) through (F): (A) At http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html download Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years', ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006. look at the graph on page 2, and conclude that the temperature of the Earth is almost exactly the same now as in year 1000. Year 1600? Sure, the temperature was lower then. Likely the best explanation is some temporary volcano activity that put a lot of sulfur into the upper atmosphere. That put the Earth into 'The Little Ice Age', killed off the human settlements in Greenland, caused a lot of crop failures in Europe, likely created the ice as G. Washington crossed the Delaware River, likely created the especially cold weather as Napoleon retreated from Moscow, and we don't want to go back to that. Since 400 years ago, the volcanoes quieted down, and we pulled out of 'The Little Ice Age' and got back to the temperature in year 1000 before The Little Ice Age. Net, since year 1000, the Earth has not been getting warmer, from humans or anything else. (B) Look at the graph of US temperature from NOAA at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/1208natltemp.png Net, since 1885, the US hasn't been getting warmer. (D) Watch Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' again and pay attention to his evidence. Some of his evidence is just absurd, e.g., pictures of icebergs breaking off from glaciers that reach the sea; when a glacier reaches the sea, pieces break off as icebergs; always have; always will. Much of his evidence is anecdotal, e.g., some glacier in Patagonia. There will always be some extreme situations, setting some new records, somewhere in the world so that for such evidence just find some such situations. So, such anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Apparently Gore got some of the data from the ice core the Russians drilled from their Vostok station in Antarctica in year 2003. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Vostok That core goes back about 420,000 years with a graph of the data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png Gore saw that CO2 and temperature went up together, noticed that CO2 levels are relatively high now, and predicted that temperature will go way up soon, with disaster. But Gore ignored a point: Did (i) the higher CO2, from whatever source, cause the higher temperatures or (ii) the higher temperatures, from whatever source, cause more biological activity and, thus, more CO2? Well, more recent analysis of the data shows that the CO2 went up about 800 years after the temperature went up causing us to conclude (ii) and not (i). A reference? Can get over 5000 from Google search Vostok "800 years" lag Good news, Al: Relax. (E) At http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm look at the report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in particular look at "Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" with lead authors Piers Forster (UK), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA) and on page 133 and following read about their key concept of 'radiative forcing'. This concept is their own and appears nowhere else in physics. Their work with their 'radiative forcing' is basically a simple 'energy balance' model that ignores any changes in fluid flows, and more in the basic physics, in the atmosphere and oceans caused by the changes they are predicting. So, at best that approach might work for some small changes for short periods of time. For predicting the temperature of the Earth 50 to 100 years from now, it's useless. Net, it's not good science. That writing is most of the best the global warming alarmists have, and they don't have anything. (F) At YouTUBE URLs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2R4rawBZ6o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gpj6EQ0PB0&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U1EPalFTxU&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQZqp-77trQ&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rXmaBzHjfI&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0faYiRyajA&feature=channel watch the R. Lindzen lecture. Lindzen is a good candidate for the best scientist working on climate anywhere in the world; he's a chaired professor at MIT. Lindzen discusses Arctic ice cover, the 'tipping point', 'feedback' effects, some of the really absurd climate science', and more. In particular, in the first part, as Lindzen explains, Michael Hulme was the head of the (now notorious 'Climate Gate') Tyndall Center for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia and author of the book 'Why We Disagree about Climate Change' with: "The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us. "Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs. "We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. "These myths transcend the scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'". So, directly from Michael Hulme, one of the more important screaming 'climate scientists', 'global warming' is, like the threat of the pool table in 'The Music Man', an old English morality play about sinful humans, etc., propaganda. Net, the whole 'climate change' concern is, directly from Hulme, admittedly, deliberately a flim-flam, scam, fraud. Net, net, f'get about 'climate change'. Why f'get about it? Because some people are eager to use fear of 'climate change' to get money and power from you. A good answer is in one word, "No".

comment

c0i55vm

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al3qj/hey_reddit_whats_your_best_rebuttal_for_people/c0i55vm/

You can leave them alone, or you can try to make them think. Or, if you cannot convince them, at least you can confuse them. Here are the key point for arguments: (1) make sure they understand the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE. Weathers are short time, climates are longer. Tell them what they are feeling are "seasonal" and does not constitute the totality of the CLIMATE CHANGE and does not in any way contradict the global warming trend. (2) reiterate the their feeling of being "cold" may not enough to compensate the fact that the ices in the North Pole, South Pole, anywhere the Polar Bear are, in your freezer and in other colder places ARE MELTING. (3) show historical records that show that the previous years are way too COLD compare to the temp we are having right now, which means, that even though it is still "COLD", it is not as COLD as before.

comment

c0i55rw

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/aknp0/on_issues_like_global_warming_and_evolution/c0i55rw/

>the discovery that warmer air does not hold more water vapor. One would have to assume that all water vapor adds to climate change in a way that increases global temperature. There are forms of water vapor that act as negative feedbacks. For example, water vapor (clouds) also reflect sunlight & thus cool the earth. Furthermore, this description would hold true for any form of warming --- If you heat the earth (via CO2 or any other way) the warmer air will hold more water vapor and thus cause more warming and thus cause more water vapor and so on until we reach some stability or infinity. My point is not that we would reach infinity, but that any warming would follow the same patern as AGW with respect to feedback, since the water vapor doesn't know the difference between AGW and GW. As far as I'm aware, this mentality wasn't applied to the naturally produced warming from the early 20th century (up to the 40s) when building the climate models that project worriesome AGW. That is to say, it wasn't expected that the warming from the high solar output in the 20th century would cause large feedbacks (locked in and likely to be seen only later in the 20th c) due to water vapor. >CO2 not absorbing IR would disprove AGW. It would also disprove the case accepted by deniers. Too broad a blanket.

comment

c0i55qo

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/al3qj/hey_reddit_whats_your_best_rebuttal_for_people/c0i55qo/

My chain is 1 and I have several of them. I'm a senior student in biology and I know of no ecology or environmental sciences professors in our department (I go to a prestigious university but it is outside of the U.S.) that believe humans are not causing the trends (which may only be short-term, admittedly). Asking me to explain why I believe we're affecting climate change without repeating what other people have said is impossible because I didn't gather any data or do any field research myself. That doesn't mean it's invalid. Can you explain Hawking Radiation without referencing, even indirectly, the work of Stephen Hawking?

comment

c0i54cf

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i54cf/

I'm confident about the data, too. Not the graph, though. i.e you can show a graph of national debt, but if it doesn't show it as a % of GDP, the graph is worthless for comparison purposes, even if the data is correct. Considering the downvotes probably have nothing to do with the science of climate change and all to do with your inane comments, then yes, it is reality.

comment

c0i51zk

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i51zk/

You're obviously the ignorant one, since I clearly stated before that I believe in man-made climate change. That has no bearing on the fact that the graph's own author (your first linked graph) says that the graph's look is probably not 100% accurate due to the time periods. I'm sorry you think I'm stupid, but I'll take solace by the amount of downvotes your inane comments have received in this thread.

comment

c0i4w57

2qh55

food

https://old.reddit.com/r/food/comments/akwxo/im_eating_collards_today_it_made_me_wonder_do_we/c0i4w57/

I boil my poke greens one minute, change the water and boil for 15. That's no big bother for a great tasting green. I've been doing that for a long time. Still here, still healthy. And consider this. That poke weed has no man-made fertilizer (good for the environement and does not use energy) no pesticides (good for the environment again no energy involved) no hormones (good for the environment and no energy involved) and biologically safe in that no one else handled it but me AND I can examine where it is growing in person. That cuke you eat from Mexico could be fertilized by human waste, is smothered by pesticides in that warm climate to kill of a multitude of pests, and is handled by dirty machines and a dozen human (all disease free I'm sure) before you that naked cuke in the store. Now, that might be a slight exaggeration, and I do use some energy boiling my poke, but I think my "poisonous" poke weed can be a heck of a lot healthier, safer and environmentally responsible than your cucumber.

comment

c0i4vl8

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al1nl/climate_change_far_worse_than_thought_before/c0i4vl8/

NEW DELHI: Global alarm over climate change and its effects has risen manifold after the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC scientists have found climate change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had predicted. Their studies will be considered for the next IPCC report, but since that will come out only in 2013, the University of New South Wales in Sydney has just put together the main findings in the last three years. Most are by previous IPCC lead authors "familiar with the rigour and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature", a university spokesperson said.

comment

c0i4vfp

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/al1mc/city_youths_in_global_green_network/c0i4vfp/

A group of young Indians, including Calcuttans, tried to forge global solidarity on actions against climate change in Copenhagen while world leaders bickered about the biggest threat to mankind. Ekta Kothari, a film-maker from south Calcutta, was part of the group of 23 students and young professionals. Trained at the Film and Television Institute of India in Pune, she not only documented various facets of the conference but also took part in youth programmes and demonstrations in the Denmark capital.

comment

c0i4vff

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/akzmz/oilrich_venezuela_ushered_in_2010_with_rationing/c0i4vff/

bah, I thought it was going to just be regular policy. That our city centre shops and billboards are lit up like it's Divali every day while people beat us with the climate change stick at every turn. It makes me sick that TKMaxx keeps 75% of its lights on all night when people freeze to death. If they want people to notice them, they should open a communal food hall and spend the energy on subsidised community food.

comment

c0i4u7x

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/akv3d/is_anyone_else_bothered_by_the_perceived/c0i4u7x/

Perhaps it is better explained here where it is called ["Manufacted Doubt"](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389) . Perhaps you should meet Senator Inhofe's four hundred [*tools*](http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101) of whom those on his list who have real credibility in the climate science field can be counted on one or two fingers on one hand only and the rest are just window dressing for the noise factor value . Meet the real behind the scenes puppet master or [villain .](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch) . Think about how many tens of billions of dollars it would cost him and his brother to clean up his vile evil polluting energy industry . To him twenty to fifty million dollars would be cheap insurance to stave off the inevitable that he must face one day in the far distant future by creating the fake artificial fictional middle ground that does not exist in the real world we live in . What price a choice , will our great grand children as adults along with their young children face in a changing world in the not too distant future of 2050 and beyond ? The world they face then will be unrecognizable to us today ! edit 1: [An additional thought to consider](http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html) Skeptics or paid propaganda mouth pieces , who do it for the pay ? edit 2: [latest round of attacking the messenger](http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/03/anti-science-deniers-james-delingpole-telegraph-intimidate-and-harass-climate-scientists-climategat/)

comment

c0i4tip

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/akv3d/is_anyone_else_bothered_by_the_perceived/c0i4tip/

You should be bothered. This blog post details it broadly. http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html But blog posts are nothing compared to empirical evidence. http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71776/The-Organization-of-Denial--Conservative-Think-Tanks-and-Environmental-Scepticism A succinct summary of the above is here http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/organizing_denial/ Maybe you should examine the many conspiracy theories thrown at climate change scientists. Or the history of denial. Maybe even whats most likely about people with interests, networks, money and influence, as opposed to the actual science. Who promoted the science of global warming as a left wing ploy? Look into it. Climate change does not care about your political views. It will do it anyway if things go on. Question your sources and always examine them.

comment

c0i4swg

2qh2z

scifi

https://old.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/akx8b/so_am_watching_a_comedy_classic_signs_and/c0i4swg/

1. Wait 100 years 2. Invade after humans have killed themselves off through climate change, nuclear war, or Glenn Beck 3. ?????? 4. Profit!

comment

c0i4sdr

6

reddit.com

https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/aktsj/im_starting_to_think_huxley_was_rightcomic/c0i4sdr/

I'd agree with that, if Mao's china is Orwellian 1984 then the UK/US is very much Huxley's Brave New World. I can't really speak for the US but in the UK the longer time goes on I see Huxley's destruction of the family unit and that sex is a means of recreation rather than reproduction. I have a 9 year old neice and her aspirations don't go any further than being like Jordan, Paris Hilton or some other useless talentless whore. It's been fed to her since an early age through every media outlett going that I beleive is akin to Huxleys caste system. She when she grows up like her mother will have no interest in the wars in the middle east, climate change, the isreali/palestinian situation or anything else outside the commercial strata of nonsense she is drip fed. Control through ignorance.

comment

c0i4q6r

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i4q6r/

"If we have the technology to change let's use it, just in case." That's not necessarily the smartest thing to do. If the cost of emission reduction strategies (eg kyoto, copenhagen) outweigh the costs they will save from climate change damage, then with 'preventative action' we'd be doing more harm than good.

comment

c0i4jt9

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/akw2i/each_yr_on_ave_442253_more_americans_are_killed/c0i4jt9/

I know some feel that reddit is just a place for discussion and debate and not action. For those who feel that way please excuse this plea for action and save a life or 45,000... This is what FOX "News" doesn't want you to know about what has already passed in Maine and Arizona: Clean Elections legislation makes our elected officials accountable to the voters and not in debt to the healthcare industry, war profiteers, oil companies, wall st. etc by providing candidates for public office the option of using entirely public funds to run their campaigns. Candidates who qualify to receive public funds cannot legally accept any private contributions. All Clean Elections candidates get an equal amount of campaign funds so that they can run on their ideas, ability, and integrity instead of on how much money they can raise. Clean Elections has already been passed in Maine, Arizona, Albuquerque, Portland(OR), for the judiciary elections in NC and a weaker version passed via the state legislature in Connecticut. A majority of states have clean elections laws on the books, and a majority of politicians oppose them. Let me repeat that: a majority of politicians oppose clean elections! That is why the New York Democracy Project's mission is to expose the politicians who oppose Clean Elections when it hurts them the most, right before each election. Redditors throw a drowning man a line and send your NY friends/family a link to the sign up page on the web site, so they can get the pre-elections info about their state senator and state assemblymen. Only with meaningful campaign finance reform will we ever see a reasonable approach to climate change, wall st. regulation and a sane healthcare policy and an end to the seemingly endless wars for oil. Find out more about clean elections and sign up to receive our pre-elections alerts here: http://nydemocracyproject.org/page/?page_id=12 Fox and the rest of the MSM can ignore us, but they can't keep us from spreading the word. Its just a matter of time before enough people know about the clean elections movement, that supporting the pay-to-play "dirty" election system will deem a candidate unelectable.

comment

c0i4j4j

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i4j4j/

I agree there too. That's why I choose not to follow this whole thing because if you look at it, pretty much everyone is being bought. Corporations fighting corporations for money, and political influence. It's enough to make me ill. As a result, I choose not to support either side. If people want to better the world and use cleaner technologies as the become available, I'm all for that. I generally support the green movement, but I'm not convinced when either side waves their hands in the air and says, "the end is near!". I just look at them like idiots because year after year we hear this stuff and year after year, we're all still here. I wish I knew a lot of these people well enough to offer to buy them all a beer when we all get old and are still all here. They want me to live my life in an environmentally friendly, non-polluting way? I'll do my best to accommodate, but don't tell me the end is near if we don't do something because I'm just going to pull up a seat and watch "nothing" happen. I survived two years of being shot at in the Middle East, I manage whatever happens with climate change. Adapt or perish, right? :)

comment

c0i49j4

2qh3l

news

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/aka8p/yeah_i_dont_get_the_fury_about_full_body_scans/c0i49j4/

I'm sure you're right. The government probably should delay action until all the facts are in... like with climate change. Once there is a good body of literature on that subject I think we can expect effective action.

comment

c0i41gz

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aktp5/hey_reddit_how_do_you_think_the_human_race_will/c0i41gz/

Peak oil meets peak population means overcrowding, no food and poor hygiene mean disease. The massive worldwide wave of disease might take the population down to a billion or so but it will be the left over things we couldn't shut down in time that will cause problems - the warheads sitting around, the reactors, the countries that are entirely empty of people and have no one to turn off the pumps, turn off the power generators. Add in climate change, desertification, flooding and a massive increase in wind speed and this takes humans down to 100 million or so. Humans don't end but what we know as civilisation does ... for a while.

comment

c0i41c8

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i41c8/

> I grew up in the seventies and then it was called oil shortage. In the eighties it was pollution. Now it's climate change. All different names for the same problem. No. These things are related but not the same. The Oil shortage had nothing to do with the environment. It was caused by OPEC's response to the US's diving military aid to Israel. More importantly though, Pollution is not the same as Anthropogenic Global Warming. The ill effects of pollution are reliably proven. We know what PCBs do in the water, we know what arsenic does in the water. We know what sulfuric acid in the skies does to trees and rivers. Global Warming is much less settled. Al Gore pronounces "The science is settled" but it isn't. We can and should work on pollution now, fully confident that the reduction of pollution is a net good. We understand the costs risks and benefits of cutting pollution. AGW response is not like that at all. > I don't know whether to believe climate change is happening or not. And you're exactly right, that isn't the point. If we have the technology to change let's use it, just in case. Once again, No. This is not the right approach. There are side-effects of adopting the "let's take action regardless" approach. The action that some are suggesting is a wholesale revolution of current energy use and policy in the western world. This is not small potatoes stuff. It's not "recycle". or "don't litter." It's "stop driving." "Stop eating meat." "Stop flying in airplanes." Those are not things I am willing to do, "just in case".

comment

c0i3ywk

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/akv3d/is_anyone_else_bothered_by_the_perceived/c0i3ywk/

>The whole argument that anthropological CO2 emissions is the absolute dominant drive in what is being described as a runaway global warming is conjecture at best, a lie at worst. Runaway climate change is not seriously accepted by most climate scientists. As for the science, it is mostly settled. [That is, CO2 is the primary driver of modern climate is as close to a fact as you can get in science.](http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html) The precise *effects* of that are open to debate, how bad it's going to get is still open to debate, and solutions are open to debate.

comment

c0i3vz7

2qhbo

sociology

https://old.reddit.com/r/sociology/comments/aj82h/what_do_you_think_a_sociology_of_climate_change/c0i3vz7/

I confess, the topic is so immense it's rather a daunting starting off point, but ... In crafting a Sociology Of Climate Change, being a big fan of numbers and demographics, I'd want to run as much data in terms of looking at belief in / significance of Climate Change across age / wealth / social status / education / religious beliefs. I want to know which demographics see Climate Change as the Unicorn of the 21st century, and which considers it the most pressing issue facing modern society today. Follow that of similar studies within the academic community, see who believes what, where they are in academia and how string their belief is. I think I'd also want to see ethnographies of the most extreme members of both camps - the high-zealotry Climate Change activists and deniers, and work out what makes them tick, what fuels their beliefs, and what their blind spots are. Check those folks against similar ethnographic looks at academia, see how much similarity there is between each of the zealot camps and the academic camps of similar styles, how each deals with the opposing camp's data, how opposition and contrary data is dealt with as well as how arguements are formed. Follow those two with a look at big business and which businesses are backing which factions - some are pro-Climate Change, some are deniers, who fits where. And once their position is established, do they do anything, internally or externally, to act on their position? Lastly, tie all these three to international power structures. Who has how much influence and where, and what forces are in play on the people who's job it is to make the decisions. Which nations are particularly contributing to or hindering action against Climate Change, and to what extent is their position a product of the forces at play within them, or are they acting on the whims of outside forces (international businesses based elsewhere, other nations, etc) and how do the power blocs in terms of overall influence lie? In short, I don't think that interpretive or positivist sociology alone will be sufficient to really get a good idea of this immense issue. Using both approaches would get a good detailed close-level image of the people and groups involved, while also providing a lot of much needed statistical data.

comment

c0i3v13

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3v13/

Well, in fairness, if you have even a rudimentary understanding of [zero-point energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy) and the concept of [free energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy), the "zero-point energy" woowoo is pretty stupid just at face value, and just demonstrates that the person suggesting it isn't remotely qualified to be suggesting it. How that applies to the current discussion on climate change, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

comment

c0i3usf

2qk5q

climateskeptics

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/akv3d/is_anyone_else_bothered_by_the_perceived/c0i3usf/

Well, I must say, that seems like a scathing attack on anyone who disagrees with your own belief about climate change. Incidentally, I must confess, I agree by and large with the *goals* of the "greens". We must stop relying on fossil fuels. We have to stop polluting. We should invest in clean energy sources. I'm personally a huge proponent of thorium. We should invest heavily in research into alternative energy sources up to, and including H3 mining on the moon to fusion reactors. I'd love an electric of fuel-cell car, once they are more practical in use. I want to see farming done in building that are energy self-sufficient, thereby providing a closed and controlled enviroment without need for pesticides etc. Available farm-land is becoming a huge problem as global population increases. But the science is not settled. There are many unanswered questions. The effects of CME's and cosmic radiation and how they relate to cloud formation. The whole argument that anthropological CO2 emissions is the absolute dominant drive in what is being described as a runaway global warming is conjecture at best, a lie at worst. I wish the dogmatic tone the debate has taken would go away.

comment

c0i3tcn

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3tcn/

> I get cranky about it, because I don't understand why people are looking to disproof climate change. Disregarding those who have a financial interest in avoiding being forced to cut emissions, it's mostly because some people have some deeply ingrained dogma that is challenged by global warming and the need to respond to it. Mostly libertarians. They can not tolerate that the free market they worship has caused this, and cannot solve it, therefore they feel they must disprove it.

comment

c0i3qwt

1a8ah

obama

https://old.reddit.com/r/obama/comments/aklzk/throughout_2009_we_heard_a_lot_about_all_the/c0i3qwt/

Oh come on. China didn't force Obama to come to Copenhagen with empty hands. It was his choice to not commit the US to anything close to what the EU countries were proposing. That would still not have secured a global deal, no, but would sure have spurred a transatlantic alliance for more far-reaching action. As it is now, Obama left behind a sour aftertaste in Europe, sorry. As for Mark Lynas' personal account of having been there and knowing it was just China that did it - sorry, but there were hundreds of people there, and it seems others think differently. Take John Prescott, who was deputy prime minister in previous Labour governments in Britain, and who [squarely blamed Obama](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/28/john-prescott-defends-china-copenhagen): >John Prescott has defended China's role in the climate change summit, saying the blame for its flawed outcome must lie with the United States and Barack Obama. > >The former deputy prime minister helped negotiate the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and was in Copenhagen acting as an informal bridge between the Chinese delegation and others. [..] > >In a letter to the Guardian, Prescott criticises the US climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who "said at Copenhagen emissions weren't about 'morality or politics', they were 'just maths', with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030". > >In his letter Prescott claims that Stern's arguments "ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita, which shows the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China's six tonnes, whilst America's GDP per person is almost eight times greater than the Chinese". He also attacks President Barack Obama for suggesting there had been a period of "two decades of talking and no action. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, who followed a lot of that protocol's policies. Indeed Obama's offer of a 17% cut is wholly dependent on Congressional approval and will still be less than Kyoto targets." Prescott is climate change convenor for the Council of Europe, with the role of exploring how to keep the talks on the road. EDIT: I'm not, of course, saying China is any less to blame - far as I'm concerned both they and you guys screwed up. And it would at least instill some confidence if US Obama supporters would own up to the less than impressive proposals Obama came to Copenhagen with, instead of instinctively grasping for one guy's account that conveniently absolves him of all blame.

comment

c0i3lhz

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aktp5/hey_reddit_how_do_you_think_the_human_race_will/c0i3lhz/

Either a large event such as an asteroid which blocks the sun out with particle debris or a slow change in climate which makes large areas inhabitable for humans. Either way, who gives a shit.

comment

c0i3kyh

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akuua/bishop_makes_climate_change_plea/c0i3kyh/

The Bishop of Reading has made a new year's appeal for people to live "more sustainably" in 2010 in a bid to tackle climate change. The Right Rev Stephen Cottrell said that it was up to everyone to take notice as part of the future survival of the human race.

comment

c0i3kkr

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3kkr/

I lost my faith in the anthropogenic climate crisis. Why do I think the skeptical case should be studied? - focusing on the dangers of this model makes it so that we misoptimize our response to environmental issues. An example is tax credits for high mpg vehicles and not on replacing coal fired power plants with solar or nuclear options. - along the same lines, research into other environmental topics has seen a decline as more money is being shifted to this topic. - some people are advocating introducing aerosols into the atmosphere to change our albedo to reduce the amount of solar radiation that arrives. Doing this to me is a large risk because we could very easily turn to a cooling trend and then we have all these aerosols present. Also aerosols reduce the effectiveness of solar power technologies. - the science of climate change is being used politically to establish a world-wide control on all economies. I personally don't trust our leaders that the establishment of this will only be used for philanthropic reasons. I think it will be used as a means to leverage into third world resources, and control emerging economies.

comment

c0i3j0j

1a8ah

obama

https://old.reddit.com/r/obama/comments/aklzk/throughout_2009_we_heard_a_lot_about_all_the/c0i3j0j/

China planned the Copenhagen failure and did so to lay the blame on Obama - the Chinese profit more from crazy folks like GW Bush vs. guys like Obama that have ties to Unions. Here's the article: [How do I know China Wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the Room](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas)

comment

c0i3hi1

2qh16

technology

https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/aknt7/neodymium_is_one_of_17_metals_crucial_to_green/c0i3hi1/

Do you blame China ? Really, they only have so many exports and limited food production and huge population control problems. Who cares if China makes a certain component that just means it'll be cheaper than if it was made anywhere else. In this case China has every right to be the primary manufacturer it's all the useless disposable crap we buy that's killing our trade. We can put import taxes on the useless crap and leave green technologies unregulated... simple. Climate change is going to ravage China so as a long term threat the US has nothing to worry about. If China won't sell us neodymium what will they do with it? Sit on it until global temps rise and world goes into mass panic and the prices drop ? China has every incentive and means to make and sell green technologies cheaper than any other nation. The US had the option to lock itself into alternative energy markets back in the 70s but we chose to elect Reagan and rip the solar panels off the White House instead. Can you say... FAIL !!!

comment

c0i3h8a

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3h8a/

Pretty simple it is impossible to implement "new green" technologies. Sure sounds good on paper but the construction costs are the real issue. Lots of Copper wire and rare earth minerals for example. Nukes have the potential to increase energy. Sounds good more energy better living. Then you run into Jevons Paradox. To go Green is more expensive and pollutes more than not. Becoming more energy efficient leads to Jevons Paradox. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html http://www.zerohedge.com/article/copper-new-precious-metal http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-next-spike-oil-prices-will-dwarf-last-one "If we built a green economy, we would kill ourselves, because we'd have to use all of our corn, oil, coal, not to mention valuable metals, to produce these clean energy devices, that produce energy at the same or less energy flux density (key word) as that we currently have. So look at it like an equation, x+y=z X=cost of oil/coal Y=cost of producing clean energy devices Z= total cost Well naturally when one drives they buy gas so X=Z When one turns on their air conditioner, odds are it's fossil fuel energy, so x=z Now what happens when you have to use a bunch of energy to produce say a hybrid car. You'll have X+Y=Z Or Solar Panels X+Y=Z because you had to use a bunch of energy and to build these things. It is, in many ways, more damaging to the environment to build 'green devices' than it is to use the good ol dirty fossil fuel things. Because the dirty little secret is how much fossil fuels are need to 'create' these devices. If you look at net energy, as defined by Chris Martenson, what was once 100:1 ration of energy in-energy out. Is now down to around 3:1. Guess where all the green technologies lie? Under 1:1, meaning even if used for 15 years perhaps even 30, it took more energy to produce the solar panel, than you got out of it. Meaning green technologies are a net energy LOSS, and that burden will fall upon our fossil fuels to provide the energy to make these things. In other words, you'll be using up all the rest of our oil, to make these things and in the end you'll get less energy back." As of right now no one has offered any realistic solutions. Cap and Trade for example exempts the US military and merely offers tree planting instead of control. Corporations still get away with doing what they want when they want. The truth is most of the Green ideology leads back to a dark ages lifestyle. Ignore co2, that is a scam, and focus on real pollution. Plus Climate Change derived because Global Warming failed and right now Climate Instability or Global dimming are being tested for mass consumption. Also hard core planet worship is being used to replace old tired religions. The same control TPTB had are failing, one of the reasons Islam is a big bugaboo people still believe. So now instead of for god and country it devolved to for planet and country. Dogma is Dogma no matter what the source and blind faith is blind. faith no matter the motive The big point is to decide for yourself. Think the process through to the end. Damn near every movement only stops in the middle. Google up the Chinese under Mao and what their killing Birds lead too. Question everything.

comment

c0i3ghf

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/aj0et/sick_of_corporate_control_over_your_food_dont/c0i3ghf/

>So, nothing to refute the statement issued by the AAEM? Now you're accepting it.Now you're accepting it. READ > COMPREHEND > POST. Nothing in my last message accepted their statement. You are putting words in my mouth because you lack any other evidence. In fact my previous statement was highly critical of their unscientific and sensationalist agenda. I have remained completely consistent with my position that current regulations provide adequate oversight. Claiming that the AAEM is more respectable than the National Academy of Sciences is akin to denying climate change. Again, don't let your personal emotions about me make this decision. The science is clear as day, when the evidence is viewed objectively it completely agrees with the position of the majority of the worlds scientists.

comment

c0i3gaq

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3gaq/

I think you need to relax. The denialist will use whatever they want to deny climate change whether its this article or one Drudge that uses this data/article but has a highly political headline. That doesn't mean people like myself who believe in climate change shouldn't have the opportunity to read interesting articles such as this one.

comment

c0i3fmr

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3fmr/

I don't know whether to believe climate change is happening or not. And you're exactly right, that isn't the point. If we have the technology to change let's use it, just in case. Cutting back won't kill me, but now doing anything might kill others. Or not, but I'm not willing to take that risk. I grew up in the seventies and then it was called oil shortage. In the eighties it was pollution. Now it's climate change. All different names for the same problem.

comment

c0i3f7c

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3f7c/

First of all I think any science is good, whatever the outcome. The only thing I know for sure about climate change, is that I don't know anything for sure. I know I only hear what they want me to hear. So I listen to both sides and make up my own mind. And in my mind it doesn't take a genius to understand we can't continue the way we are.

comment

c0i3ejq

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3ejq/

Why to disprove climate change? Many good reasons: lots of cash from polluters and their lobbyists primarily. Grandiose delusional disorder of misunderstood genius. Inability to retract disproved claims to keep "I am never wrong" credibility.

comment

c0i3eas

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3eas/

No what it does is add another thread in the scientific understanding of climate models - it does nothing to disprove that at some point the excess heat will melt tundra, etc which make up the basis of the 'tipping point' argument. What i find depressing is that people are willing to jump on any vague report from anyone who says anything against climate change while totally ignoring the major body of evidence and scientific consensus which exists just because they fear it might undermine their opulent lifestyle in some minor way, driving a hybrid and using less plastic is just too much of a price to pay to live on a hospitable planet.

comment

c0i3dzc

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3dzc/

And you made a fantastic point with that. I don't personally believe that climate change is occurring. It's basically a trust issue I have that stems from my belief that these people are being bought. It's a personal thing I can't get over. That said, I agree that we are being HORRIBLE hosts to the planet that we'd be wise to dramatically change our ways. I don't need some scientist or politician to shout from the podium that the climate is going to get warmer. I'd much rather them focus on the people embracing new technologies that are clean while encouraging letting go of the old technologies. By changing over to clean-tech, we're meeting the needs I have, while helping those people focused on "Climate Change" meet theirs. And while we're at it, how about we start by forcing companies to end the tradition of "planned obsolescence."

comment

c0i3dks

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3dks/

youre right, we shouldnt question the reason that the governments are using to tax the shit out of every person in virtually every country, all while making a certain person who supposedly is the face of the climate change crisis incredibly rich... great logic! /s I agree that we should cut back on energy use, waste, etc... but global climate change is being used to make a massive tax on virtually every country on this earth to setup these scam cap and trade "industries" only to make big corporations and certain people even richer. Hard caps on emissions would make complete sense, but then there is no $$$ in it for the government so it wont be considered...

comment

c0i3d60

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3d60/

I get cranky about it, because I don't understand *why* people are looking to disproof climate change. Even if it's exaggerated or even completely untrue, it wouldn't hurt to cut back on water, fuel, waste, etc. To me it's like saying "I'm going to keep feeding my kids poison, until someone *proves* it's poison".

comment

c0i3cgi

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3cgi/

The big problem here is that the ocean is acidifying and the result will have to be that the worlds largest CO2 sink decreases in it's ability to remove CO2 as marine life declines. Even if all other factors can be dealt with almost nobody has a solution for ocean acidification. It's the biggest most ignored factor in global climate change.

comment

c0i3c3k

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3c3k/

I think people are cranky about it because it's the kind of thing that can easily be misquoted to appear to debunk existing climate change theories. Misunderstanding can be a powerful tool.

comment

c0i3alk

1a8ah

obama

https://old.reddit.com/r/obama/comments/aklzk/throughout_2009_we_heard_a_lot_about_all_the/c0i3alk/

A good reminder of some things he did achieve - some of which I didn't even know, or had already forgotten, like the Public Lands Protections legislation. But this overview has a far too heavy emphasis on speeches. Amidst the "historic address", the "beautiful vision", the "address to graduates in Moscow", the townhall in China and the "loving visit to Africa", between "one of the most amazingly honest speeches", the "commencement speech in a place where some people really hates [sic] him", the "message for America's students", the "conversation with 9th graders" and the interview with a student-reporter, among reading to kids on the WH lawn, presenting a night of astronomy and reading letters to the president, and amidst more "heartbreaking speeches", "moving eulogies", "funny appearances" and "good punchlines", a staggering half of the 40 or so items listed here are about words rather than actions. About symbolical steps rather than concrete domestic legislation or substantive foreign policy changes. And that's not counting the White House kitchen garden or the improvement of "brand America". Considering that one of the most voiced raps against Obama, justified or not, is that he is all words, the beautiful speechifier who hasnt proven his worth in real action, a listing like this comes across, if anything, as confirming the stereotype rather than debunking it. Considering the link karma here, it apparently works as a confidence booster for Obama supporters, but I doubt it does much for anyone who isn't dreamy about Obama in the first place. I, for example, was extremely happy that Obama won against, first, Hillary Clinton, and then John McCain in 2008 - even if he hadn't been my first choice in the primaries. Since one of my main doubts about him in the primaries had been that he was too cautious and too centrist, I was not surprised that he didn't suddenly turn into Bernie Sanders once he was elected, and took things slowly. But still I've been disappointed by just how bogged down he has gotten. And while much of that is due to the filibuster, the intransigent opposition and the handful of conservative Dems in the Senate, I can't help but feel Obama himself hasn't been anywhere assertive enough. The Copenhagen summit on climate change was a disaster - and over here in Europe, newspapers in the different countries I travelled through singled out Obama's unwillingness to make a meaningful move on America's commitments as the main cause of failure along with China's refusal to budge. Similarly, the Cairo speech may have been "historic" at the time, but without concrete follow-up, its symbolic effect in creating good-will in the Arab world is dissipating fast. With no progress in Israel/Palestine, the US surge in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay and similar internment places abroad, most of it has dissipated already. I understand that this is not the place to repeat the most common criticisms of Obama again. What I'm saying is just that I would have gladly exchanged the whole lot of speeches, interviews, talks and punchlines that are admired at such length in this post for just, say: Obama having joined the EU in offering concrete, half-way ambitious further emission cuts, and thus making a difference in Copenhagen. SCHIP, the Hate Crimes Bill, expanding veteran benefits, the Lily Leadbetter Act - those were all great first measures. The health care legislation about to be completed falls short on many counts but is still a historic step forward (if only most of it wasn't only going into effect in 2013/2014...). The stimulus bill was a relative disappointment, but still staved off the worst of a looming crisis, at least for the time being. Fine, by all means, remind us. But as someone with mixed feelings about his record so far, all the focus on his "moving" speeches just rankles me further. Give me a dry summation of actual legislation that was passed under his leadership any day, and we'll evaluate in historical comparison from there.

comment

c0i3a4m

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aks2h/no_rise_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_fraction_in/c0i3a4m/

This is the latest distraction from the Denial gang - another attempt to try and confuse the gullible and ignorant with [an interesting and slightly uncertain element of the science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction) that in no way changes the basic theory of and evidence for climate change. CO2 has increased ~40% since pre-industrial - and continues to climb dangerously. That's the key part of global warming. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

comment

c0i36sg

2qh0u

pics

https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akneh/wicked_slippery_i_love_living_in_new_england_pic/c0i36sg/

That happened all the time when I lived down there, long before climate change became an issue. NYC is just on the border between the area that usually gets snow and the area that more often gets rain. Want consistent snow? Move to upstate New York, Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire.

comment

c0i32aw

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ake6l/san_diego_weatherman_debunks_climate_change_tell/c0i32aw/

>So you have abandoned your lie about remembering predictions. Instead you have this new lie about the UN paying people. What astounds me about deniers like you is that you will accept any anti-warming claim with utterly no evidence, but demand infinite evidence from scientists. I haven't abandoned anything. The prediction was as I stated. It did not come to pass. End of story. No one can prove a negative. The fact remains that no one to date, not one scientist has clearly proven that the burning of fossil fuels, cattle farts, or any farts for that matter, are creating a global weather crisis. What has been proven to be behind such assertions is a highly motivated effort to guilt people of more industrialized nations, who also happen to be better of financially, into either willingly or forcefully to depart with some of that wealth, which will wind up in the pockets of very few. I have more respect for the Nigerian scam artists at this point, than I ever will for those attempting to lie to the world in order to ply their trade. >OK, please show you evidence for this. Not claims from other deniers, but statements from the people who did the name change. Or some evidence of some sort. Nope. I don't need to produce a thing to back that one up. Everyone who has followed the progression of this farce took notice of the phraseology change after several harsh winters in the northern hemisphere. >Given that there has not been some great increase in "solar flaring", how is it "more plausible"? The last period of active solar flare activity waned in 2006. The last peak occurred in 2001. I think if you do just a little research, you might just find that extreme weather coincided rather well with increased solar activity during those years. It's been MUCH colder the past couple of years in the north. Down south where I am, we have experienced far colder temps than we is normal. It is predicted (by scientists who study the sun) that in 2012, another warming cycle will take place, as the sun gears up for another round of flare activity. Let's see whose science comes closer to reality. >His are "relevant" in that they tell us something of his knowledge base. In this case his are exactly the same as mine: no relevant domain expertise. That is why I look to the scientists who work on this topic for information. You are looking to about 60 scientists who were specifically hired to prove an agenda. Nothing more and nothing less. Try to find a credible group of scientists who were not paid by the United Nations, who are eager to substantiate the claims that greenhouse gases are destroying the planet. >No one has said that all CO2 is bad. The issue is not that there "suddenly" is CO2 in the air, but how much CO2 there is. It is the difference between a bath tub with the drain open that is matched by the faucet water and one that is overflowing from too much water. You're probably unaware that the most significant increase in CO2 levels peaked just after WWII. For 40 years afterward, the levels steadily declined. I'll give some another fine reason why the levels are increasing. Population explosion, excessive building that includes the destruction of trees, and the plundering of millions of acres of trees to produce paper. Thankfully, the last one has declined dramatically because paper is not in as high demand with the increase of technology, but our lands are raped of the plants that would cleanse our air to make way for strip malls that are often abandoned a decade later. Here, where I live, I can count no less than a hundred abandoned commercial properties within a thirty mile radius. >I understand that the current climate models are more complex than what you learned in the 3rd grade. That is OK, we all have much to learn about many things. What you fail to understand is that what was learned in the third grade is just as true, just as relevant, and easily refutes complicated and contrived obfuscations created to confuse the eternally obtuse among us. And as you have demonstrated, some people would rather buy into such creations than to revert to that which has been proven beyond ANY doubt whatsoever. The simple fact is that if you remove CO2 from our atmosphere, all you're going to be eating when you order a salad at your favorite restaurant, is dirt. You see, I trust Mother Nature to adapt to changes that occur as man evolves. Scientists not too far in our past once had most of the world convinced that the world was flat. What will scientists have to say about the theories cooked up in the early 2000's a few hundred years in the future?

comment

c0i2xgq

2r5vt

doesanybodyelse

https://old.reddit.com/r/DoesAnybodyElse/comments/akl7y/dae_bust_out_laughing_during_avatar_when_they/c0i2xgq/

> My point is that you don't give a shit about the message presented in Avatar because you already agree with it, as do most people. No, it's because it's a work of fiction and I can enjoy it regardless of whether it's pro-environmentalism or not. > I'd also be willing to wager that you have done very little - if any - research into climate change of your own, as have most people. I've read quite a bit on it, but if you mean doing actual science research in a lab or something, then no. Regardless, it's a moot point because it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

comment

c0i2x0s

2r5vt

doesanybodyelse

https://old.reddit.com/r/DoesAnybodyElse/comments/akl7y/dae_bust_out_laughing_during_avatar_when_they/c0i2x0s/

Not necessarily. He could simply be [sympathetic to the environmentalism movement.](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2009/12/james-cameron-sees-avatar-as-environmental-warning/1) Edit: Imagine a hypothetical scenario, if you will. An environmentalist friend of Cameron calls him up for a chat: Environmentalist: Hey James, you know that movie you've been thinking about doing; the one about the evil corporation who's destroying the planet for greed, and how the planet fights back in the end and wins? James: Yeah? Environmentalist: Well, I think that if you went ahead and did that, it could have a great effect on people right now. We're trying to save the earth, and people just aren't really concerned enough for us to REALLY be able to make a difference. We have the Copenhagen conference coming up at the end of 2009, and that will mark the beginning of the big push for real, meaningful change to save the environment. The problem is that we just aren't quite sure that the American public is on board enough to make American assent to a global climate governing body politically feasible. James: Yeah, I think you might be right... It's time to do this. Thanks bud, I'll ttyl. Environmentalist: Take care, James. Look at the movie. Look at the message. Look at the political climate. Look at what's going on re: climate change and carbon trading. Coincidence? Probably not. James might have even recognized the impact that his movie might have *on his own*. Believe it or not, he's a pretty smart guy, so I hear.

comment

c0i2wtw

2r5vt

doesanybodyelse

https://old.reddit.com/r/DoesAnybodyElse/comments/akl7y/dae_bust_out_laughing_during_avatar_when_they/c0i2wtw/

The difference is that the world isn't on the verge of moving to militant fascism, and Starship Troopers wasn't going to nudge society in any direction favorable to anyone of any consequence. My point is that you don't give a shit about the message presented in Avatar because you already agree with it, as do most people. I'd also be willing to wager that you have done very little - if any - research into climate change of your own, as have most people. People are basically relying on the authorities to tell them what is right, and that is what ruffles my feathers.

comment

c0i2twr

2qh61

wtf

https://old.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/akmtn/fireplace_fascism_in_calif_burn_wood_and_your/c0i2twr/

In an atomic sense - if you're looking at carbon neutrality - then you're correct. All of the carbon that ends up in the atmosphere came out of the atmosphere in the first place. This is what we'd be concerned about if we were talking about global climate change. Chemically speaking, however, you're very wrong. What the tree pulled out of the air was carbon dioxide. It didn't remain carbon dioxide however - it became sugars, cellulose, etc. If the wood were fully, perfectly combusted, you'd pretty much get CO2 out. This doesn't happen in a wood fired stove or fireplace - this is why you get such thick, visible smoke out of such a fire. There are all kinds of long chain carbon compounds - soot, etc - that either have to accumulate on something or break down via photochemical reactions. This is where we get concerned about air quality and start designating days where people with health problems should stay inside.

comment

c0i2qun

2qhbo

sociology

https://old.reddit.com/r/sociology/comments/aj82h/what_do_you_think_a_sociology_of_climate_change/c0i2qun/

Good point. I posted my reply in there but it's worth summarizing here... hopefully this might get things kicking: I think a sociology of climate change could actually be very challenging. The general ideas touch on a variety of subjects, such as, how are we impacting our environment and how are we now responding to the environment's feedback? How are political and economic incentives interpreting the problem? For example, a lot of the past world climate change meetings (Kyoto) saw this as a technical cost/benefit analysis: how to lose as little money as possible while still consenting to curb carbon emissions. Does this attitude reflect a disinterested, albeit detached view of ourselves from our environment? How seriously do we really take climate change and what are the effects? On the other end, how are climate-change prevention movements analyzing the situation? Are they being naively optimistic thinking they can stop climate change, when some scientists believe it is too far down to prevent major climate shifts in this century? It's a loaded topic, I feel, with a ton of data, theories and hypothesis to look at. From the little I know, even though human beings are becoming aware of the impact of civilization on the environment, it doesn't mean we know how to stabilize or become more harmonic with ecosystems and planetary systems as a whole. We've been largely driven by our own traits without having to call them into question until recently: intelligence, manipulation of environment have always been our best survival tools, anthropologically speaking. Now, without reflecting and understanding the impact of those tools on a planetary scale, we may threaten to cause ourselves and the planet much harm. This century, I feel is one where our awareness of the world as a dynamic system, and ourselves a part of it, may finally become an essential part of our species endeavors. I don't see how it couldn't be. We simply can't continue doing what we're doing without dealing with serious consequences, and nearly instantaneously. Socially, our "global" interconnected civilization could learn to value a more coherent (planetary) and long term perspective to avoid future disasters...

comment

c0i2mxi

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/aklzu/throughout_2009_we_heard_a_lot_about_all_the/c0i2mxi/

>Protecting kids from the influence of Tobacco companies: Not bad! >Expansion of Veteran Benefits: Increase the VA budget, help fund the post 9/11 GI Bill and dramatically increase funding for veterans health care: That's good! >One of the most moving moments of the year: signing the Hate Crimes Bill That's... not so good. Hate crimes are a stupid institution that put emphasis on racial differences instead of trying to move past them. Furthermore, hate crime legislation shows that certain groups are more important than others, and certain groups are immune from certain laws. That is certainly not a positive thing, no matter how you want to spin it. >Oh-Oh, a wise Latina is now Supreme Court justice: Hm... this article is starting to lose credibility. That statement is incredibly juvenile, sort of disrespectful, and not substantiated. If we're trying to move to a more progressive culture, shouldn't we stop putting so much emphasis on gender and race? Isn't that what the hate crime bill is supposed to move us toward? >The US is once again the most admired country in the world: That conclusion is not supported by the data provided *at all*. The data was about the Brand America, not America as a country. If Fox had done this, reddit would crucify them. >There was historic address to the Muslim world in Cairo: That's good! Although not terribly useful. >And a beautiful vision of a Nuclear-Free world: Erm... you don't believe that, do you? Really? Because I thought pretty much everyone knew that that was just a dream, not an actual goal. >A date was set to end the war in Iraq: ...kinda. >There was Town Hall in Shanghai, China. China?! China! That's good. [But Bush did it first](http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Obamas_China_town_hall_unprecedented.html). The sentence is phrased as though that was unthinkable, even though it happened less than 8 years ago. >And address to graduates of the New Economic School in Moscow: Not really important. >A loving visit to Africa: Amazingly, far less important. >And this. One of the most amazingly honest speeches I've ever heard: The speech was only good because a Democrat said it. For the last few years Bush had been making those exact same points and there was no end to the criticism from sites like Kos. That, and the fact that justifying a not-for-protection war at a PEACE PRIZE reception is kind of a stupid thing to do. >SCHIP legislation That's good! >Ryan White HIV/AIDS Act Good as well! [Although not as good as Bush's efforts](http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/bottom_news_of_the_week_george_bush_is_the_superhero_of_hiv_aids_relief). >Oh, and that almost-accomplished greatest piece of social legislation in 45 years. While imperfect, it will cover 30 million people, and if it was done 15 years ago, my best friend, Dave, might still be alive because he would not be denied coverage based on pre-existing bullshit. That first sentence is kind of stupid, but I think most people on here are smart enough to understand that. The second sentence is factually incorrect as people can already get health care if they need it to survive. Dave might have to pay for it, but he was never denied it. It also obliterates any notion of objective journalism this article had. >Insentives for excellence Sort of good, I guess. Also, you misspelled 'incentives', and it's not like spell checkers cost money. >There was a commencement speech in a place where some people really hates him: Wow, nice grammar there. Also, that's not an accomplishment, unless you want to give Bush a gold star for every speech he made in the last 5 years of his presidency. >"Wash your hands and stay in school" Indoctrination from coast to coast: That's good! >In small classes too: Starting to stretch a bit... >And even one on one: Stretching further... >Clean energy, Environment and Climate Change That's good! >Clean cars mileage rules Not so good. >Science: The president brought science back from the deep darkness during Bush days. Needless (and incorrect) editorializing. However, the act itself is a positive. >And kids sitting on the WH lawn, while the president reads "Where The Wild Things Are": Again, there is no substance to this. You can't talk about all the wonderful things he has done as a president and then give tiny examples that didn't have any resounding effects. You're just padding the list. >There were nights of Star-gazing: More padding. >There's a first kitchen garden since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt: If your criteria for a good president includes a clause like that, then you're just taking what he's already done and then retroactively saying it makes a good president. No one honestly has that on their list of "things successful presidents do." >There were heartbreaking speeches: That was a good speech! >And moving eulogies: Far less important, but also good! >And funny appearances: Completely unimportant! >And good punch lines: Again! >But even after all that, even after such an eventful year, this short and almost unseen clip, still reflect the true amazement of this presidency. Obama's final sentence here, just saying it all. Not really. So: We've got a list that's about 75% longer than it needs to be, and it highlights things that are not really important. The things that are important are a mixed bag, and the conclusions drawn from the information range from petty partisanship to outright falsehoods. The author clearly can't even be bothered to use spell check or to read the sources he or she is quoting, and the 'article' reads more like a string of thoughts than an actual piece of journalism. Obama has been a pretty good president. However, when you start trying to turn him eating an orange for breakfast into the greatest political and social achievement in the world, it starts to cheapen your message. Instead of trying to show how he is the ultimate greatest person ever, just show a few of his accomplishments and remind people that when you look at the big picture, he's done alright.

comment

c0i2jtt

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ake6l/san_diego_weatherman_debunks_climate_change_tell/c0i2jtt/

Were you trying to response? OK, you edited your response. Here is mine: >The people currently credited with cooking up evidence that our planet is in peril are idiots who are on the payroll of the United Nations. They were paid to produce evidence. They were not paid to be impartial. So you have abandoned your lie about remembering predictions. Instead you have this new lie about the UN paying people. What astounds me about deniers like you is that you will accept any anti-warming claim with utterly no evidence, but demand infinite evidence from scientists. >It's EXACTLY why the phrase used to describe this farce that used to be "global warming" was changed to "climatic change." OK, please show you evidence for this. Not claims from other deniers, but statements from the people who did the name change. Or some evidence of some sort. >As was pointed out, the more plausible explanation for any warming at all, can be directly tied to solar flaring, a natural occurrence that has nothing at all to do with carbon dioxide emissions on earth. Given that there has not been some great increase in "solar flaring", how is it "more plausible"? >Ok...what are YOUR credentials if you consider his irrelevant? His are "relevant" in that they tell us something of his knowledge base. In this case his are exactly the same as mine: no relevant domain expertise. That is why I look to the scientists who work on this topic for information. >I learned in the third grade that carbon dioxide existed naturally in our air and that many plants depend on it's existence for their survival. Plants and trees clean the air. It's been that way for centuries. No one has said that all CO2 is bad. The issue is not that there "suddenly" is CO2 in the air, but how much CO2 there is. It is the difference between a bath tub with the drain open that is matched by the faucet water and one that is overflowing from too much water. I understand that the current climate models are more complex than what you learned in the 3rd grade. That is OK, we all have much to learn about many things.

comment

c0i2g0t

2qh1s

economics

https://old.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/akfui/krugman_i_usually_hear_two_reasons_for_not/c0i2g0t/

If demand is rising for a floating yuan, the currency would appreciate, leading to immediate deflation in foreign-purchased raw materials (commodities). The peg is designed to keep prices stable in the face of an influx of dollars. Up to now, any inflation that China experienced can probably be accounted for by increases in real wages, which is a positive benefit for the populace. This picture may change now that the FRB is purposefully inflating the dollar, but *ceteris paribus*, I can't see how a floating yuan could possibly spell anything but severe harm to the business climate in China.

comment

c0i2f1f

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akl0m/is_the_airborne_fraction_of_anthropogenic_co2/c0i2f1f/

Heh. This latest distraction is playing well in Denier circles - another chance to try and confuse the gullible and ignorant with an interesting and slightly uncertain element of the science that in no way changes the basic theory of climate change. CO2 has increased ~40% since pre-industrial - and continues to climb dangerously. That's the key part of global warming. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

comment

c0i2e6f

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ahx8s/the_global_warming_skeptics_vs_the_scientific/c0i2e6f/

> There are plenty of reasons to take climate change seriously, but to be pedantic for a second, consensus does not make truth. Nobody said it does. > "Most scientists believe this so you should too" is an awful and very unscientific argument to make. It is a form of appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The argument is not fundamentally a logical one. It is a scientific one. It is totally normal to say: "The people who have the time and resources to research X say Y." I do not have a large hadron collider in my basement, so I listen to the physicists who do. I do not have the time or money to construct a climate model that will run on a supercomputer, so I listen to the climatologists who do. If your standard of acceptance of scientific pronouncements: "I have seen AND evaluated ALL of the evidence myself" then you will know less about the natural world than the average reader of the science section of USA Today. Like for example, they will know that the moon is covered in a fine dust. But you'll have to go investigate that yourself.

comment

c0i28rb

2qhpm

vegan

https://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/akkgw/defensive_omnivore_bingo_repost_from_pics/c0i28rb/

I have an omnivorous friend who thinks climate change is a hoax. But she cares deeply for her dogs. She sent me a petition about dogs and cats and I replied, what about the cows and pigs and chickens? And her angry response was "I don't force you to eat meat."

comment

c0i28hb

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akl0m/is_the_airborne_fraction_of_anthropogenic_co2/c0i28hb/

No one truly knows what's going on, but for a while there, I was thinking, "Duh, hello, of course it's us." Some information I've seen recently leads me to wonder. Also, the amount of CO2 we pump into the air is great already and has not really changed year to year. Why the sudden, accelerated climb? Is the "feedback loop" really taking hold so quickly? Did we just have to get it to a certain point and now it will skyrocket? I see posts on reddit every other week about some finding or another that says warming is happening even faster than previously thought. Something else that has me wondering: People talk about the methane being released by creatures trapped under what should be permafrost, which is now melting. What was going on with the climate when it was warm enough for those creatures to be alive and thriving in their environments? I'm also not trying to say climate change and global warming aren't happening, and that the results won't be catastrophic, but I just wonder about the answers to some of these questions.

comment

c0i26c6

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/akkvs/looking_back_at_national_reviews_predictions_for/c0i26c6/

the climate change link... http://www.climateimc.org/en/original-news/2009/12/08/2009-set-become-fifth-hottest-year-record-hottest-decade at least see the proof offered before you dis credit it.

comment

c0i2624

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/akkvs/looking_back_at_national_reviews_predictions_for/c0i2624/

>The push for climate-change legislation will intensify as the Obama administration targets more dollars to “green jobs,” even though 2009 will be the coldest in years and the “temporary halt” of global warming will enter its second decade. What is wrong in this statement? Obama is targeting green hobs, and I haven't read that 2009 was any warmer than any year since 1998. Its common knowledge that temperatures have NOT increased since 1998, so t WILL be entering the second decade of halted global warming. >The rise of the oceans will begin to slow and our planet will begin to heal. I don't know how you prove this one way or another, but I haven't seen any evidence that sea levels rose in 2009. All I have seen is that during the summer on the east coast of the US the sea rose unexpectedly, but it was deemed to have nothing to do with global warming. >By the end of 2009, the biggest problem facing the U.S. economy will be rampant inflation. Ok, they got this wrong. But the ONLY reason they got it wrong is that the inflation hasn't started yet. Not exactly like they called for Martians to land on earth here. Its fairly well understood that inflation is a real risk, although it seems as though 2010 will be the year and not 2009. So overall, this website is stupid and provides no valid evidence to disprove a single claim made by national review. Even the links they do provide do not discuss the specific claims made, but rather are broad generalities or single articles that are meant to "disprove" the claims.

comment

c0i23n1

2qh16

technology

https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/akj66/ten_real_emerging_technology_trends_of_the_next/c0i23n1/

I'm aware of iron fertilisation, sulphur seeding, ships that spray water vapour in to the atmosphere, biochar and several others - the point is that's all highly speculative 'vapourware' or not feasible. The impacts of performing most of these things on the scale that would be needed to mitigate carbon pollution are somewhere between unknown, not enough and catastrophic. I'll repeat: geoengineering is little more than a - *dangerous* - comfort blanket. Betting a future liveable climate on someone possibly inventing something in time to save it is stupid beyond belief. There is only one method that can avoid further global warming and ocean acidification: stop pumping billions of tons of carbon in to the atmosphere. There is no substitute. I disagree with the author and you - [change is coming](http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223047+22-Oct-2009+PRN20091022). We'll know in a hundred years or so if it happens quickly enough.

comment

c0i1syl

mouw

science

https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/akaqs/science_daily_new_research_shows_no_increase_in/c0i1syl/

Oh my!!! Is real science starting to creep into the "climate change" debate. Good let's see what is really going on rather than dealing with personal egos and greed. Sorry if the truth ain't what you expected ---

comment

c0i1qs0

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akiks/australias_rudd_stands_by_call_for_action_on/c0i1qs0/

Action on climate change is in Australia’s national interest and must be pursued for the benefit of future generations, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said. “If we do not act at home and abroad, we betray both our children’s future, and their ability to enjoy our natural wonders, including the Barrier Reef,” Rudd said today in his New Year’s message to the nation.

comment

c0i1pye

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/aki56/my_new_years_resolution_for_boomers_stfu_listen/c0i1pye/

Bitter...Really? 2 failed wars. The Recession. Climate Change. Crappy health care. Crappy education, et al. I am not bitter. I am rationally and justifiably angry at Boomer policies.

comment

c0i1pd9

2cneq

politics

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/akcbt/the_reason_the_us_is_going_to_shit_is_not_the/c0i1pd9/

> We have no history - ours goes back only 400 years while the rest of the world has to deal with rivalries and tensions of 5000 years. As opposed to Australia, with a 222 year history? > All other peoples of the world live in conditions that most North Americans would find deplorable. As an Aussie, I think you need to take your blinkers off. Moving along, I think part of the problem is that Americans seem to be brain washed from birth to think they live in the best country in the world. This is in spite of: 1. Shitty health care with no universal option. My wife just gave birth to our child in the best hospital in my city, in a fully equiped birth suite (with spa bath, mood lighting, mp3 player, and lots of other helpful items). Pics: http://imgur.com/n2R7S.jpg http://imgur.com/334ze.jpg Guess how much it cost me? $0! 2. A minimum wage so shitty it would make most slave drivers blush. Strangely any effort to raise it is opposed by your hard core conservatives... who claim to be christian. It's christian to have people living in such poverty? 3. Your country worships capitalism so hard that any attempt for socialist policy is shouted down as though it is communism... which is bizarre, because it seems like your society doesn't give a shit about its poorest members? 4. Your country claims to be all about freedom whilst invading other countries and using your CIA to distabilise other countries governments. Seriously, wtf guys? 5. An apparently horrible schooling system. 6. A large population (% wise) of mouth breathers who oppose evolution and climate change. 7. A stupidly high prison population, locked up for stupid offences like smoking a joint. 8. A high crime rate in many of your cities. I live in a city of 2 million people, yet I have never been robbed or mugged. Sometimes I do not even bother to close my garage door if I go out. 9. A large number of gun owning morons. Why would I *need* a pump action shot gun or AK-47 to protect my family from danger? The police here do a good enough job of that. The gun obsession in the US baffles me. How Americans can think they live in the best country in the world baffles me. Here is a list of places I would rather live (in no particular order): * Australia * New Zealand * Almost anywhere in Europe * Canada * Singapore * Seoul

comment

c0i1hsb

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/akfxy/any_manly_advice/c0i1hsb/

Changing the oil *filter* every single time you change the oil (and filling it with oil, and coating the rubber seal with a bit as well) is imperative to this. It's only like 5 extra bucks and you may as well not change your oil if you're not going to change this too. The other thing is actually going through your owners manual and putting in the *proper* oil for the mileage and the climate. Both are important to consider.

comment

c0i1a0w

2qh1n

environment

https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/akc6b/british_mp_confounds_comfortable_stereotype_of/c0i1a0w/

A man who though a moderate Tory , has a mixed record. None the less I welcome his stance on this. Climate change doesn't care about your politics. I wonder how he fits into the climate change is a socialist plot meme?

comment

c0i195b

2qh13

worldnews

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ak9a5/king_stephen_harper_shuts_down_canadian/c0i195b/

Both Iggy and Harper would have marched us into Iraq. Both libs and cons have a strict policy of doing absolutely *nothing* about climate change. And yet these two are our most popular politicians right now.

comment

c0i14fb

2qh1i

askreddit

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ake6l/san_diego_weatherman_debunks_climate_change_tell/c0i14fb/

should be "San Diego Weatherman has an opinion on climate change. Tell me Reddit. . . does he have a valid point? If not, why?" FTFY He was a weatherman since 1953. Not a scientist on global climate change. He is the founder of a large commercial network. He ran The Weather Channel for 1 year. Here is an article with a couple tidbits about this guy. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/coleman-weather/ Here is an article that I just found on google doing exactly what you just asked this community of people to do for you. http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman I have better things to do than validate your hopeful doubt in "Global Warming". Back to talking kitties and bacon.