• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So, you're saying there's a chance.

Well there's no way one group of scientists can predict anything which can be extrapolated to all of nature /2&2SlidertoLeyritz
 
the fact that 800 scientist put together all this time/data and still are only "95%" confident should be evidence enough that politics are not part of the equation. lectro is such a tool
 
The climate debate is a lot like the abortion debate. "Teams" line up on each side and are WAY more concerned about proving the other "team" wrong than finding any real solutions. Nearly everyone would agree that we need less abortion. Nearly everyone would agree finding alternative energy is a good thing. The problem is that some people are way too concerned about winning some sort of debate than actually limiting abortion or finding alternative energy. Another reason why our two party system sucks.
 
You should be able to gamble your families future right now. If you believe in protecting the environment, climate change, the EPA etc.. you get to sign a form that in the future you and your children will be provided the (yet to be invented) breathing mask that will allow you to live past the age of 20 in the toxic environment that will be our atmosphere, or guarantees you your ticket on Elysium. If you do not believe in climate change, the environment etc.. you don't sign and forfeit the right to said future you are helping to create.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
The climate debate is a lot like the abortion debate. "Teams" line up on each side and are WAY more concerned about proving the other "team" wrong than finding any real solutions. Nearly everyone would agree that we need less abortion. Nearly everyone would agree finding alternative energy is a good thing. The problem is that some people are way too concerned about winning some sort of debate than actually limiting abortion or finding alternative energy. Another reason why our two party system sucks.
Click to expand...

These scientists weren't getting together to do anything other than ascertain how much humans were causing global warming. Conservatives for the most part don't feel like humans cause global warming so they don't worry about making sure it doesn't happen. I don't think that this is like abortion at all. That topic can be framed multiple ways - womens' rights vs. murder, etc., while this topic just has people debating over facts. There aren't really any moral questions or implications here, the point that OP was making I believe is that people (mainly conservatives) will say "oh it's only 95%, I don't believe it" and continue on their merry way debating facts.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
You should be able to gamble your families future right now. If you believe in protecting the environment, climate change, the EPA etc.. you get to sign a form that in the future you and your children will be provided the (yet to be invented) breathing mask that will allow you to live past the age of 20 in the toxic environment that will be our atmosphere, or guarantees you your ticket on Elysium. If you do not believe in climate change, the environment etc.. you don't sign and forfeit the right to said future you are helping to create.
Click to expand...

Everything I just said in the last post still withstanding, this is a ridiculous post too. Earth is not going to turn into Elysium for humans. We're an incredibly adaptive species and I think even with people's short-sightedness it's pretty unlikely that anybody in the future requires gas masks simply to exist on earth.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
These scientists weren't getting together to do anything other than ascertain how much humans were causing global warming. Conservatives for the most part don't feel like humans cause global warming so they don't worry about making sure it doesn't happen. I don't think that this is like abortion at all. That topic can be framed multiple ways - womens' rights vs. murder, etc., while this topic just has people debating over facts. There aren't really any moral questions or implications here, the point that OP was making I believe is that people (mainly conservatives) will say "oh it's only 95%, I don't believe it" and continue on their merry way debating facts.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm not seeing Skins' point. Environmentalists have tons of solutions for reducing our impact on the environment. It's kind of what they do. The other side just wants the status quo because "climate change" just happens.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
The climate debate is a lot like the abortion debate. "Teams" line up on each side and are WAY more concerned about proving the other "team" wrong than finding any real solutions. Nearly everyone would agree that we need less abortion. Nearly everyone would agree finding alternative energy is a good thing. The problem is that some people are way too concerned about winning some sort of debate than actually limiting abortion or finding alternative energy. Another reason why our two party system sucks.
Click to expand...


so science doesn't matter to you. It's about "teams" to you. Wow!
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Sometimes I wonder how you function in real life.
Click to expand...

I always wonder that about you. Of you choose me rather than the others who hold the same position regarding your post as I do.

You see my name and have a Pavolovian response.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Yea, I'm not seeing Skins' point. Environmentalists have tons of solutions for reducing our impact on the environment. It's kind of what they do. The other side just wants the status quo because "climate change" just happens.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have been more clear. The opponents of abortion and the opponents of climate change science act similar. They never really look for solutions they look to win a debate. Fringe pro lifers don't really want less abortion...if they did they would be behind sex education and contraception. Only the fringe of the climate deniers would say that alternative energy sources is a bad thing. However, because "conservatives" (strange title for this issue) think they are on the team of anti-climate change they think they should be anti-alternative energy sources.
 
RJKarl said:
I always wonder that about you. Of you choose me rather than the others who hold the same position regarding your post as I do.

You see my name and have a Pavolovian response.
Click to expand...

The reason the dogs salivated is because he rang the bell. Your ridiculous responses are like the bell ringing so your analogy is correct.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
I guess I should have been more clear. The opponents of abortion and the opponents of climate change science act similar. They never really look for solutions they look to win a debate. Fringe pro lifers don't really want less abortion...if they did they would be behind sex education and contraception. Only the fringe of the climate deniers would say that alternative energy sources is a bad thing. However, because "conservatives" (strange title for this issue) think they are on the team of anti-climate change they think they should be anti-alternative energy sources.
Click to expand...

You're talking about the politicians, not the scientists.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
it's pretty unlikely that anybody in the future requires gas masks simply to exist on earth.
Click to expand...

I think you are vastly underestimating the complexity that allows for functional safe breathing. We aren't talking you walk outside and your face melts off, we are talking small changes to a very complex atmospheric formula that make it difficult to breath, lead to respiratory problems, etc.. One could argue that the need of such technology is already needed in China where the air quality count measures as high as 700, where 20 is deemed ideal, and anything about 300 is considered extremely hazardous.

china3n-5-web.jpg

china3n-6-web.jpg

china3n-4-web.jpg


Seems safe
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
The reason the dogs salivated is because he rang the bell. Your ridiculous responses are like the bell ringing so your analogy is correct.
Click to expand...

Your responses to anything I post have been Pavlovian for over a decade.
 
RJKarl said:
Your responses to anything I post have been Pavlovian for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that you have said that about dozens of posters. Is the problem with all of us or you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top