And so it begins . . .

Just for fun, let's ask a simple question: What's better, a colder, dryer world, or a warmer, wetter one? Which season do you prefer, winter, or summer? What climatic scenario is actually better for humans, one in which the range of agricultural activity is more limited, with a shorter growing period, or one in which crops can be grown in wider regions, with longer growing seasons?

In short, what the hell's WRONG with warmer weather? Honestly, the Warmists had better HOPE they're right, because global climate DOES change, constantly (and for all but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of geological time humans haven't even been present for any of it), and those shifts go to extremes of COLD as well as warm.

As for imagining that any efforts of humankind have or could have had any significant effect on the vast, planetary machine that is global climate is both the xenith of hubris and the nadir of ignorance. Vaster forces than we, swarming fleas drive weather and seasons; we might as well go down to the shore and command the tides to turn back as worry ourselves with gaseous emissions which account for nothing compared to the natural ebb and flow of our planet's atmosphere, even if they did account for much change in the climate (when was the last time the megatonnage of CO2 belched forth by a volcanic eruption accounted for any significant, lasting change in even local atmospheric temperatures?)

However, there are ALWAYS those happy to tell YOU how to live your lives, and where to send your money, in order to command the skies and the seas to hew to your collective will. Don't expect THOSE persons to change their own lifestyles, of course; their fleets of limousines and jet planes and ships and huge mansions etc. must be held exempt. Your efforts should be more than sufficient to the cause, right? =^[.]^=

(deleted the first part)

So to the point. 97% of the scientific community accepts the fact that human activity contributes to climate change (they might disagree on the DEGREE that it contributes, but they beleive it does nonetheless), and they have actual scientific EVIDENCE to back it up.

With THIS in mind, every climate change denying text, can be considered as propaganda, or conspirancy theory, or a dogma or a beleif or something and these kind of texts have no place in schools. Outside you are free to read whatever the fuck you want.

But until climate change denyers get significant support of the scientific community with serious research to back it up, that's how it is and their theories cannot be considered anything else but conspirancy theories. It's like allowing in schools texts that support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Or allowing texts that reptilians live inside us. Or allowing texts that Jews and Masons secretly rule the world.

That's also why i a against mandatory religious teachings of any kind in school(they can be there as a free to choose subject still), and i am 100% against ANY teaching of creationism, because beleiving that the earth is 4000 years old i just flat out STUPID, and it is DANGEROUS if taught in school.

Mandatory creationism shouldn't be in schools but with the reality of how much impact religion has on the world I'm not against a class on or that includes religion in general - general cultural origins, theocracy, the major religions and their origins, how religion impacts modern societies both small and large scale etc.


Leaving young people ignorant to other cultures and their ideas/ideals is the kind of ignorance that fosters hate.

Creationism should not be in schools AT ALL. Neither as a free to choose subject because it teach things that are OUTRIGHT dismissed by scientific evidence (dinosaurs 4K years ago. Dinosaurs living with humans, i mean REALLY?).

Other than that, depending on schools i am not against having religious studies as a free to choose subject. I agree with what you say about the cultural impact of religion throughout history, but i beleive these aspects should be taught in lessons like history, sociology and anthropology.

But strict religious lessons, be it christian studies, or islamic studies or whatever should not be mandatory. When i was in school here in greece they were, unless your parents made a formal signed letter that you are an non beleiver, they are fine with it and they wish that you will not participate. But it was still kind of a big deal and many times lead to social exclusion of the student.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Because banning books is always a good idea eh?

http://portlandtribune.com/sl/307848-185832-portland-school-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials

I wonder how long until "they" start asking Google to ban/suppress links to information they disagree with.

Science by consensus! We will tolerate no dissent! Is your mind for the purge!

No one expects the Academic Inquisition.

begins? haha.. ignorance is bliss

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Just for fun, let's ask a simple question: What's better, a colder, dryer world, or a warmer, wetter one? Which season do you prefer, winter, or summer? What climatic scenario is actually better for humans, one in which the range of agricultural activity is more limited, with a shorter growing period, or one in which crops can be grown in wider regions, with longer growing seasons?

The effect climate change might have on agriculture (both on land and in the sea) is a much more complicated affair than this. Plants, livestock and fish tyically have an optimal temperature range and many will be threatened by excessive warming. Some might prosper, as you suggest, but so will many pests. Sensitive marine ecosystems are further threatened by an increase of acidity as we are literally carbonating the oceans.

To answer the question you ask, I would prefer the kind of climate we ourselves as well as our food sources have evolved in. There is no need to royaly fuck everything up if all I want is warmer winters when I can just schedule a vacation in Spain or something.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

In short, what the hell's WRONG with warmer weather? Honestly, the Warmists had better HOPE they're right, because global climate DOES change, constantly (and for all but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of geological time humans haven't even been present for any of it), and those shifts go to extremes of COLD as well as warm.

Let's see, elementary school physics tells us that matter expands as it is heated. Incidentally, oceans are made of matter. While you let this sink in, add the accelerated melting of land ice, in particular on Greenland and Antarctica, to the mix and consider how many important population centers are located at or near a coastline, as well as how much farmland is located on a very low altitude.

...

Yeah, it's bad.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

As for imagining that any efforts of humankind have or could have had any significant effect on the vast, planetary machine that is global climate is both the xenith of hubris and the nadir of ignorance. Vaster forces than we, swarming fleas drive weather and seasons; we might as well go down to the shore and command the tides to turn back as worry ourselves with gaseous emissions which account for nothing compared to the natural ebb and flow of our planet's atmosphere, even if they did account for much change in the climate (when was the last time the megatonnage of CO2 belched forth by a volcanic eruption accounted for any significant, lasting change in even local atmospheric temperatures?)

The problem with your assessment is that it's just not real. We have in fact affected so much that geologists are even talking about us entering a new geological time period of our own making. And most of the debate is if we haven't entered it already. Yes, we are ultimately insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things, but nowhere near as insignificant as you would like to think. For example, the megaton CO2 expulsions of volcanoes is dwarfed by our annual emissions counted in the gigatons.



Even when compared against the most generous estimations of volcanic CO2 contribution, we are still greater by 3 orders of magnitude.

This is the right call. Giving oxygen to climate change denial in a science classroom is akin to teaching alchemy in chemistry class.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Just for fun, let's ask a simple question: What's better, a colder, dryer world, or a warmer, wetter one? Which season do you prefer, winter, or summer? What climatic scenario is actually better for humans, one in which the range of agricultural activity is more limited, with a shorter growing period, or one in which crops can be grown in wider regions, with longer growing seasons?

The effect climate change might have on agriculture (both on land and in the sea) is a much more complicated affair than this. Plants, livestock and fish tyically have an optimal temperature range and many will be threatened by excessive warming. Some might prosper, as you suggest, but so will many pests. Sensitive marine ecosystems are further threatened by an increase of acidity as we are literally carbonating the oceans.

To answer the question you ask, I would prefer the kind of climate we ourselves as well as our food sources have evolved in. There is no need to royaly fuck everything up if all I want is warmer winters when I can just schedule a vacation in Spain or something.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

In short, what the hell's WRONG with warmer weather? Honestly, the Warmists had better HOPE they're right, because global climate DOES change, constantly (and for all but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of geological time humans haven't even been present for any of it), and those shifts go to extremes of COLD as well as warm.

Let's see, elementary school physics tells us that matter expands as it is heated. Incidentally, oceans are made of matter. While you let this sink in, add the accelerated melting of land ice, in particular on Greenland and Antarctica, to the mix and consider how many important population centers are located at or near a coastline, as well as how much farmland is located on a very low altitude.

...

Yeah, it's bad.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

As for imagining that any efforts of humankind have or could have had any significant effect on the vast, planetary machine that is global climate is both the xenith of hubris and the nadir of ignorance. Vaster forces than we, swarming fleas drive weather and seasons; we might as well go down to the shore and command the tides to turn back as worry ourselves with gaseous emissions which account for nothing compared to the natural ebb and flow of our planet's atmosphere, even if they did account for much change in the climate (when was the last time the megatonnage of CO2 belched forth by a volcanic eruption accounted for any significant, lasting change in even local atmospheric temperatures?)

The problem with your assessment is that it's just not real. We have in fact affected so much that geologists are even talking about us entering a new geological time period of our own making. And most of the debate is if we haven't entered it already. Yes, we are ultimately insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things, but nowhere near as insignificant as you would like to think. For example, the megaton CO2 expulsions of volcanoes is dwarfed by our annual emissions counted in the gigatons.



Even when compared against the most generous estimations of volcanic CO2 contribution, we are still greater by 3 orders of magnitude.

I have some bad news for you. The planet. Doesn't. Care. We WILL have warming, and cooling, and to degrees which may be just a tad more than inconvenient for humans (and other species). Sea levels have already risen within the span of human existence (there are plenty of submerged ruin sites to be found off current shorelines). Coastal populations will adapt (a la the Netherlands) or move. We're still here (for now), and I'm reasonably sure that there is plenty of potential agricultural real estate which a warmer climate would open up. Vinland was a fine, historical example:

http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html

Or are you going to tell me that AGW caused the Boreal warming trend (for example) 12,000 years ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_%28age%29

"The start of the period is relatively sharply defined by a rise of 7 °C in 50 years. The date is based fairly solidly on Greenland ice cores, which give 11,640 BP for the late Younger Dryas and 11,400 BP for the early Pre-Boreal."

Humans (among other species) survived that warming just fine, without high tech (and certainly without contributing to it).

The fact is, climate IS change, and to presume that we can somehow influence that change is silly. Cite all the "experts" you want; they have become as badly politicized as the media, and serve much the same function, now, as an echo chamber for policy. Appeal to Authority is still a fallacy, and a lazy one, at that, especially when the movers and shakers behind the AGW movement are so transparently blasé about the whole thing, where their own behaviors and activities are concerned. When Algore and Leonardo DiCaprio begin to live their lives like the world is about to end, THEN you can tell me how scary AGW really is.

At any rate, humans and other organisms adapt to the changing environment, and, since that is what the natural environment does, we will have to, since we're only along for the ride. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Spoiler

I have some bad news for you. The planet. Doesn't. Care. We WILL have warming, and cooling, and to degrees which may be just a tad more than inconvenient for humans (and other species). Sea levels have already risen within the span of human existence (there are plenty of submerged ruin sites to be found off current shorelines). Coastal populations will adapt (a la the Netherlands) or move. We're still here (for now), and I'm reasonably sure that there is plenty of potential agricultural real estate which a warmer climate would open up. Vinland was a fine, historical example:

http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html

Or are you going to tell me that AGW caused the Boreal warming trend (for example) 12,000 years ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_%28age%29

"The start of the period is relatively sharply defined by a rise of 7 °C in 50 years. The date is based fairly solidly on Greenland ice cores, which give 11,640 BP for the late Younger Dryas and 11,400 BP for the early Pre-Boreal."

Humans (among other species) survived that warming just fine, without high tech (and certainly without contributing to it).

This is literally ranked as the number #1 most used myth about AGW on skepticalscience:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm



The point: We know climate change is *bad* (remember when you asked what's wrong just a few posts up?) because we have observed the effects similar events have had in the past. It is a monumentally stupid act of self-destruction to help it happen again.

And to say that climate change can't be caused by us because climate has changed in the past is like saying that it can't possibly be arson to set your neighbour's house on fire because homes burn down by accident all the time.

I'd like to see someone try that defence in a court.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

The fact is, climate IS change, and to presume that we can somehow influence that change is silly.

You keep saying that we can't possibly be exerting an influence and I have to repeat myself: This is simply not true. Human influence is cold, hard, reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Spoiler

Cite all the "experts" you want; they have become as badly politicized as the media, and serve much the same function, now, as an echo chamber for policy. Appeal to Authority is still a fallacy, and a lazy one, at that, especially when the movers and shakers behind the AGW movement are so transparently blasé about the whole thing, where their own behaviors and activities are concerned. When Algore and Leonardo DiCaprio begin to live their lives like the world is about to end, THEN you can tell me how scary AGW really is.

The only authority in science is evidence, and even then it's an authority that is under constant scrutiny. This is part of what allows theories to evolve and improve over time. And who's fucking talking about Gore and DiCaprio?

"

Raycheetah wrote:

At any rate, humans and other organisms adapt to the changing environment, and, since that is what the natural environment does, we will have to, since we're only along for the ride. =^[.]^=

Living organisms, of both flora and fauna, many of wich we depend upon for our own well-being all need one thing in order to adapt to change: time. And time is the one crucial thing AGW is not giving them as the rate of change is by far to quick.

If you need X amount of time to do something, and I give you only a tiny fragment of that time frame to accomplish it then I shouldn't reasonable expect that you are able to finish.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I have some bad news for you. The planet. Doesn't. Care. We WILL have warming, and cooling, and to degrees which may be just a tad more than inconvenient for humans (and other species). Sea levels have already risen within the span of human existence (there are plenty of submerged ruin sites to be found off current shorelines). Coastal populations will adapt (a la the Netherlands) or move. We're still here (for now), and I'm reasonably sure that there is plenty of potential agricultural real estate which a warmer climate would open up. Vinland was a fine, historical example:

http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html

Or are you going to tell me that AGW caused the Boreal warming trend (for example) 12,000 years ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_%28age%29

"The start of the period is relatively sharply defined by a rise of 7 °C in 50 years. The date is based fairly solidly on Greenland ice cores, which give 11,640 BP for the late Younger Dryas and 11,400 BP for the early Pre-Boreal."

Humans (among other species) survived that warming just fine, without high tech (and certainly without contributing to it).

The fact is, climate IS change, and to presume that we can somehow influence that change is silly. Cite all the "experts" you want; they have become as badly politicized as the media, and serve much the same function, now, as an echo chamber for policy. Appeal to Authority is still a fallacy, and a lazy one, at that, especially when the movers and shakers behind the AGW movement are so transparently blasé about the whole thing, where their own behaviors and activities are concerned. When Algore and Leonardo DiCaprio begin to live their lives like the world is about to end, THEN you can tell me how scary AGW really is.

At any rate, humans and other organisms adapt to the changing environment, and, since that is what the natural environment does, we will have to, since we're only along for the ride. =^[.]^=

You do unerstand how silly you sound yourself when you make comments like that. I mean Jeez.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

In the context of climate variation, anthropogenic factors are human activities which affect the climate. The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,"[60] and it "is largely irreversible."

On denial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Pseudoscience

Various groups, including the National Center for Science Education, have described climate change denial as a form of pseudoscience.[115][116][117] Climate change skepticism, while in some cases professing to do research on climate change, has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.[118]
In a review of the book The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin, David Morrison wrote:
"In his final chapter, Gordin turns to the new phase of pseudoscience, practiced by a few rogue scientists themselves. Climate change denialism is the prime example, where a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels. Scientists have watched in disbelief that as the evidence for global warming has become ever more solid, the deniers have been increasingly successful in the public and political arena. ... Today pseudoscience is still with us, and is as dangerous a challenge to science as it ever was in the past.[119]
Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[120][121][122] and Ellen Goodman,[121] among others,[123][124] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.


Global warming denial started from corporate magnets, buiseness tycoons and lobbists that had alot to loose IF actions were made to improve the situation. The most rediculous fact is that even US conservatives in the 90s admitted the fact that there is a problem and something should be done.