1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 3:22 AM
He's partly right. As the Sun ages it gets both warmer and slightly larger. 3 billion years ago the sun was about 25% less radiant than it is today. Of course this rate of change is very gradual. What makes global warming such a big deal is that by geological or even human civilization standards it's happening very rapidly. By human lifetime standards still a bit slowly. We notice it more in the patterns of decades instead of years. The big deal with global warming is the cause. CO2 has a long (200 year) half life in the atmosphere so much of the pain of the CO2 we've already put in the atmosphere will be felt in 2100 or 2200. Our contemporary civilization will deal with some bad weather and some stress but the real pain will be felt 200-400 years from now. A million years from now the sun will be 0.01% more radiant. The issue is timescales and causation. We could keep it from getting really bad 200 years from now or we could contribute to making it really bad then. Our choice.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 3:10 AM
Reading this is like watching some one enjoy the smell of their own farts. The author of this hack job blog is who decided human's suck. Scientists are the ones celebrating the amazing capacity of the human mind to explore the world, probe its secrets, test hypothesis, and reason towards a deeper understanding of the way the world and the universe function. Scientists are also the ones pointing out that sometimes our actions have unintended consequences. Like dumping tanning chemicals into streams and rivers kills life in those rivers or that thalidomide causes babies to be born with birth defects. Wasn't the intended outcome but it was still negligent and tragic. So now 800 climate scientists have joined 30,000 other climate scientists to say that 40 years of study, testing and critical analysis leads them to conclude that burning fossil fuels has driven CO2 from 280 ppm to 400ppm and that basic physics means that's warming the earth. We won't die off a species. Few of the people reading this blog will suffer any real consequence but there will be many negative, life threatening effects distributed over the globe and across 7 billion people. The question to us is do we care and are we willing to address it like we did the threat of CFCs to the ozone layer, or polluted rivers and unbreathable air. We overcame all those crisis without costing jobs, slowing down our economy or suffering any real hardship. Why not make the effort, check in every 5 years and see if we like the progress or not? Or I we could say humans are fine, but we're just selfish pigs who couldnt give a rats a(&* about anyone else. That wouldn't make us evil, would it?
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 2:56 AM
So by this logic any attempt to improve the way we respond to a crisis must first be met by a cessation of all related activities. Let's see how that might work in a real scenario. Fires used to burn down whole cities, Chicago, London, Philadelphia, San Francisco. There were massive catastrophes and often caused by bad luck or carelessness. So. Instead of raising taxes to train and equip professional fire fighters. Instead of changing building codes and requiring dozens of fire abating costs to be incurred by builders. Instead of investing millions of tax dollars in fire response and prevention research. Instead of crafting arson laws and arson law enforcement policies and practices. We should have berated anyone seeking to make these changes for not rescinding all actions that might lead to starting a fire. We should have resisted all attempt to mitigate that catastrophe because it was clearly going to take money from some and give it to undeserving potential fire victims and we should have preached that believing in the badness of fires was a liberal scam seeking to control our lives. Are you huffing paint?
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 2:47 AM
The Pentagon, under Bush/Cheney, produced a report that noted that global warming would lead to massive displacements of populations from droughts, flooding and other weather disasters. They forecast that the disruptions would lead to more international violence, wars, famines, and refugees. They also predicted arctic would become a resource competition between the US, China, Russia and Europe as it became more accessible. They noted that many low lying areas from Bangladesh to Florida and North Carolina would be inundated by rising tides and drive huge resettlement and insurance costs. North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida are already feeling the effects of rising sea level. More areas will in time and given how much of the sea level rise is back loaded into the earth's systems there's nothing we can do about it in our lifetimes or even our grand children's accept try to adapt to it and maybe try to keep if from getting worse. But we don't really seem to be up for that yet.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 2:40 AM
This is basic physics. CO2 is a molecule that traps infrared light and re-emits it. This has been known since the early 19th C. It's can't not do this. The carbon cycle is natural but also has many episodes where it got out of balance due to volcanism, meteor impact and it's effected by burning fossil fuel and by deforestation. CO2 traps heat. This has been directly measured by satellite. Best current reading is the earth is not in black body equilibrium by about 0.6 Watts per square meter per second. That means earth is trapping 306 Billion Watts of solar energy per second! 71% of that is going into the oceans, ~25% into the land and the rest into the air itself. So when scientists say the global average temp has gone up 2-3 degrees F that's the tail of the dog. And it's an astounding amount of energy pumped into earth's systems. A 3 inch global sea level rise over 361 million square kilometers of ocean is mind boggling! With a projection for that to reach about a meter by the end of the 21st C....that's MASSIVE.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 2:16 AM
Yeah, right I'm just sitting here waiting to have control of you and your family. Hoping to impose my arbitrary standards for morality and justice on their life choices, say for instance wanting to decide when they give birth and whose child they bare or whom they want to date or to marry. Yeah that's just common thinking among the liberals I know. I am liberal, vastly more so than our current Democrats or President. I think a just society seeks to address the short comings of human prejudice, malice, shortsightedness and greed by enabling a level playing field for competition (this is an active process, not a passive one) by defining the rules of competition and by vigorously punishing the liars, cheaters and thieves. If someone makes a product that pollutes, they get penalized. If someone offers a service duplicitously, they suffer a consequence, if a company steals health and resources from a community, there's a way to hold them accountable. You call that wanting control. I see that as govt. playing the role we asked it to. Set the rules, enforce them and keep adjusting and reviewing those rules to accommodate greater knowledge and awareness that we gain from scientific progress. In the meantime, let us use our creativity and talent to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 05, 2013 7:22 PM
Hey usmcpgw. Thanks for the vigorous CUT & PASTE of random gibberish from your computer. Super helpful. Was starting to wonder when I could be inundated with the rants of a blithering idiot. Although I suspect paid troll might be equally valid.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 05, 2013 7:16 PM
You were born into a representative democracy. You never signed a piece of paper saying you would forego owning slaves, you never signed a piece of paper saying you wouldn't enter into a treaty with Cuba, you never even signed a piece of paper saying you wouldn't marry 10 teenage women. But, I suspect that you follow those laws without question (or the sense of oppressive tyranny). There's something like 40,000 laws (state & federal) - none of which you likely signed. Are you saying that their existence causes you to be oppressed? I'm sure, if you knew about all of them, many would offend you. But what does that actually mean? Fossil Fuels: Total oil, coal, gas = about 3-4 Trillion barrels (equivalent) - source 450 million years of plant and animal remains compressed by geologic processes. Proof: carbon 13 isotope ratios at measured layers of sediment. Vaccines: no know connection to asthma.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 05, 2013 7:02 PM
Ironic. I was just investing in the stocks of multi-billion dollar AGW companies and noting how massive their CEO pay was and wrapping my head around the TRILLIONS of dollars these companies have amassed and the hundreds of millions they spend on lobbyists to protect those salaries and profits when it dawned on me that I was looking at oil, gas and coal companies and actually couldn't find more that a handful or solar, wind or "green" companies to compare them too. Ants among elephants.
In response to:

Top Scientists Confirm: Humans Suck

Benjamin73 Wrote: Oct 05, 2013 6:50 PM
No. We have a great, but flawed economic system that doesn't account for pollution or long run negative effects very well. You build a product or provide a service and if it happens to totally ruin a river, lake or in this case the global atmosphere, there's no good way to add the cost of remediation back into the economics that drove your product cycle, especially if those effects might not be detectable until 20, 40 or 50 years later. Mercury is toxic. Lead is highly toxic. Asbestos is toxic. We learned about their effects slowly, after carefully studying large populations over time. When we understood how dangerous those substances were we came up with new rules for their safe application (the right calls these regulations) but liberals call them pragmatic social contracts. You want to make a hat, don't dust it with Mercury to keep it dry (like they used to do), use a safe chemical alternative. You want to create and sell energy. Great. We need that. Now make it in such a way that it accounts for the health effects and climate effects it costs and let us choose whether we want to buy it (fully priced) or buy another source of energy. The system today is rigged to hide all those costs from fossil fuels and shows up in hospital visits due to asthma or in insurance premiums due to extreme weather damage. Liberals want the true costs reflected in the cost of production and then the freedom to choose based on that real, fair, complete information. And if you can name other factors that should be included, they should be too.
1 - 10 Next