Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

I guess I missed this when it happened, but there was an article in the NYT about NOAA funding:

quote:

This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it. The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a �propaganda� arm on climate.

And from the linked WP article:

quote:

In the NOAA budget battle, the Democratic-led Senate approved most of the climate service in its budget. The Republican-led House approved none of it. Led by Hall, the Republicans won.

After the deal, which passed Congress last week, a House Appropriations Committee news release implied that Congress had saved $322 million in fiscal year 2012 by nixing the climate service.

The reality: Congress is still giving NOAA those funds for climate research and data delivery. But they�ll be distributed across the agency instead of consolidated under an umbrella climate service. The hundreds of millions in savings trumpeted by the Republican-led Appropriations Committee are an illusion.

So I guess when somebody asks what concrete steps we can do to make things better, then one answer is to never vote for a republican.

# ? Dec 25, 2011 19:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 21:44

Coriolis: Oct 23, 2005

Bubbacub posted:

So I guess when somebody asks what concrete steps we can do to make things better, then one answer is to never vote for a republican.

A vote for the GOP is a vote for comic book supervillainy. Sometimes it's hard to believe they really exist.

# ? Dec 25, 2011 21:53

Axelgear: Oct 13, 2011; If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. It happens pretty often and I will try to change my opinion if I'm presented with evidence.

Sometimes. If it helps, though, they're getting eaten apart from the inside. The far-right has sort of splintered and gone nuts.

This doesn't mean that the opposition is inherently more sane or responsible but the lesser of two evils is at least a step up instead of just sorta saying "gently caress it, let it burn".

# ? Dec 25, 2011 23:02

SirPablo: May 1, 2004; Pillbug

Paper Mac posted:

Here's a map showing NCAR's predictions for drought (using some fairly conservative assumptions re: emissions) in 2030-2040:

The Oklahoma dustbowl would have shown up as a change of -3 to -5 on that scale. Have a look at the Mississipi basin, and then the drought map.

Do you have any additional info on these maps? What you've posted is very arbitrary and nondescript beyond "DUST BOWL!". Thanks.

# ? Dec 26, 2011 05:33

SirPablo: May 1, 2004; Pillbug

Bubbacub posted:

I guess I missed this when it happened, but there was an article in the NYT about NOAA funding:

Yea this stuff is kinda crazy. NOAA has been trying to get a National Climate Service up off the ground for a few years now. It isn't an OMG expansion of government! rather a re-alignment that would result in better efficiency. You think conservatives/Republicans would be sporting wood over that. NOAA does a poo poo load of climate-related work/services already, not like putting the brakes on the NCS changes much. I'm fairly familiar with this, being a NOAA scientist (I wouldn't directly work in the NCS, though do climate work in the NWS).

# ? Dec 26, 2011 05:36

Space Crabs: Mar 10, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Bubbacub posted:

I guess I missed this when it happened, but there was an article in the NYT about NOAA funding:

And from the linked WP article:

So I guess when somebody asks what concrete steps we can do to make things better, then one answer is to never vote for a republican.

I went and saw some friends on Christmas Eve, at the gathering was our radical Conservative friend. I passed a sociology test way back that I had not studied for on Conservatism by remembering things this friend had said to me. "Boot Straps" was a term on the test.

We got on the subject of global warming and he just said the exact same sentence he has said for the four years I have known him. "Now, all this global warming stuff.....it's not what people think, its a naturally occurring process."

My response was "So, assume it is then, we are naturally going to be hosed unless we try and control greenhouse gas emissions in some way."

His response was a literal hand wave and some kind of mumbling about Al Gore before he walked off. Argue the semantics all day but I do not understand the "Liberal Conspiracy" Rush Limbaugh talking points.

It's pretty obvious its happening, we know long term effects, we compile more and more data every year that there is a problem.

# ? Dec 26, 2011 06:18

Manchester: Dec 27, 2008; If you don't have anything good to say, say it on the Internet.

God dammit I had to read this thread and see what's coming. Welp, we lived through several ice ages, I'm sure we'll make it through this.

# ? Dec 26, 2011 06:22

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Manchester posted:

God dammit I had to read this thread and see what's coming. Welp, we lived through several ice ages, I'm sure we'll make it through this.

We haven't lived through several ice-ages, we evolved and have lived exclusively in just one of them. Our species is only ~200,000 years old. The current ice-age started ~2,000,000 years ago. Maybe humans can survive outside of an ice-age, but maybe they can't. Probably they can, but its going to take some major adjustments. More to the point, the faster we come out of this ice-age the harder it will be to make a smooth transition.

# ? Dec 26, 2011 07:05

tmfool: Dec 9, 2003; What the frak?

SirPablo posted:

Do you have any additional info on these maps? What you've posted is very arbitrary and nondescript beyond "DUST BOWL!". Thanks.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/14/207198/southwest-drought-global-warmin/

# ? Dec 26, 2011 15:30

Wolfy: Jul 13, 2009

The real part that gets me is those responsible for accelerating this process aren't going to be around to live with the effects. What right does anyone like Rush to insert himself in this discussion?

# ? Dec 27, 2011 03:14

Space Crabs: Mar 10, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Wolfy posted:

The real part that gets me is those responsible for accelerating this process aren't going to be around to live with the effects. What right does anyone like Rush to insert himself in this discussion?

I remember maybe five years ago I was driving around listening to Rush as I oft like to do when bored in the car.

I have to paraphrase but I remember this distinctly because I stared at the radio afterwards

"They say there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real. That proves it is a lie right there, no other topic has scientists agreeing in a consensus on it, there is always room for debate"

He seems to have morphed his opinion into a more incendiary talking point in recent years though (not linking to give that gently caress traffic)

Rush Limbaugh, June posted:

Well, this is precisely my point: There...is...no...proof! There is no scientific unarguable, unalterable law that says, "Manmade global warming is happening," and yet to this guy we just have to accept that because a bunch of scientists think it is. Now, I'm sorry, "consensus" has no role in real science. Scientific discovery isn't up to a vote.

This is the exact opinion parroted almost word for word by more than a few of my conservative friends.

# ? Dec 27, 2011 03:26

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

May I humbly suggest that life is a bit less stressful if one tries not to make too many conservative friends. It only encourages them.

# ? Dec 27, 2011 05:20

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

SirPablo posted:

Do you have any additional info on these maps? What you've posted is very arbitrary and nondescript beyond "DUST BOWL!". Thanks.

I sourced the originating article a few posts later

# ? Dec 27, 2011 06:34

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

http://theconversation.edu.au/plimers-climate-change-book-for-kids-underestimates-science-education-4803

quote:

Plimer�s climate change book for kids underestimates science education

The forces of climate science denial have geared down a level. Having failed in their attempt to confuse adults and stop the parliament adopting a timid first step in response to climate change, they are now trying to get at schoolkids.

Ian Plimer, a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background at all in climate science, has published a new book, �How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents and Punters�.

The book is being promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs, a propaganda unit funded by business to promote an extreme free-market ideology. Its web site doesn�t just deny climate science but also the need to return water to the Murray River, even the health risk of tobacco smoke. The IPA has also argued that we should waive the restrictions on admitting �guest workers� because expanding the minerals industry is too important to be slowed by minor considerations about workers speaking English, being healthy and fitting into the community.

Plimer and the IPA have been working together to spread misinformation about climate science for some time. Plimer has an appeal on the IPA web site, soliciting donations to help the cause of muddying the waters.

His 2009 book, �Heaven and Earth�, was an embarrassing collage of half-truths, misinformation and misquotes of respectable scientists. Climate scientist Ian Enting published a detailed rebuttal of its arguments, while there is now even a web site Plimer vs Plimer, exposing the internal contradictions in Plimer�s case.

Plimer�s new publication purports to be an �anti-warmist manual� that arms children with �101 questions� to challenge their teachers. Plimer claims that his book aims to take politics and ideology out of science teaching. Given that, it�s remarkable the campaign is being promoted by the explicitly ideological IPA.

The book was also launched in Sydney by former Prime Minister John Howard, almost certainly the most ideological Prime Minister in our history. Howard stacked the ABC Board with ideologues and even championed the ridiculous attempts to re-write Australian history, playing down the dispossession of the original Australians.

Howard claimed that �People ought to be worried about what their children are being taught at school�. He said, �It�s a matter of real concern�. He attacked the teaching of climate change science as �one-sided�, presumably advocating the teaching of the uninformed superstition of denial to counter-balance the science.

Plimer said parents write to him saying that their kids are getting �environmental activism at school, rather than the basics of science�. Of course, if they do understand the basics of science, they will know that science proceeds by painstaking analysis of evidence, so they will understand why all the world�s major academies of science accept the evidence of climate change. They will also know that science works by considering the implications of the data they collect, which is why climate scientists are almost universally worried by the rate and scale of the changes they observe.

In my experience, school students do understand the science. I can�t imagine that anyone but a determined adult ideologue would be taken in by the sort of stuff in Plimer�s book. He says that the questions like �Is climate change normal?� will �embarrass poorly prepared teachers�.

They would have to be as poorly prepared as the IPA and Plimer not to know both that climate change has been a factor throughout the Earth�s history and that the scale and rate of change we are now seeing has no parallel in that history.

The irony is that the whole exercise purports to cleanse climate science of ideology and politics. What it is really saying is that the IPA ideology of free markets and unconstrained capitalism should be promoted in schools to counter the scientific evidence that we are straining the capacity of natural systems. Now that would be �a matter of real concern�.

This website is excellent, if you don't mind its australian bent. Its a general news site, written by academics, but not necessarily for an academic audience.

http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/media-and-democracy

Theres a heap there about the way the Murdoch press, who owns 70% of print media in australia has been utterly loving the democratic system here, partly by introducing the same sort of super-hostile tea-bagger nuttery here, and more to the point plain out loving lying on climate change , (and refugees, and mining taxes, and the NBN and whatever project labor has on offer for the torys to sabotage).

The site does largely focus on how the climate change debate has been hosed over, and much of it will be recognizable to brits and americans.

http://theconversation.edu.au/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638 is a good read.

# ? Dec 28, 2011 17:03

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Hulu currently has the NOVA episode about the Antarctic Secrets Beneath the Ice available for streaming. Pretty interesting, different research shows water levels rising between 12-60 feet based on the amount of heating predicted to happen by the end of the century.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 04:32

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Even a few feet could have brutal effects on drinking water supplies

# ? Dec 29, 2011 04:47

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

duck monster posted:

Even a few feet could have brutal effects on drinking water supplies

Yeah, I'm concerned about the North American Great Lakes. Ignoring the fact that Canada has signed away all its fresh water rights to the US, we need those lakes to feed a lot of agriculture, and I can see some crazy scheme where they start tapping into the lakes in order to try to maintain the hilariously unsustainable communities in the American south-west.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 05:03

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Great Lakes are already about 10 or 15 feet lower than what they were back in the 50s IIRC.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 05:20

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

The boffins really need to hurry the gently caress up and work out a sustainable and cheap way of desalinating water that wont turn a water crisis into an energy crisis.

Actually thats the whole chinese-finger-trap nature of this fucker. A lot of these problems are only solvable by expending more energy, and "more energy" is what got us into this fix in the first place

# ? Dec 29, 2011 05:45

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

duck monster posted:

The boffins really need to hurry the gently caress up and work out a sustainable and cheap way of desalinating water that wont turn a water crisis into an energy crisis.

Actually thats the whole chinese-finger-trap nature of this fucker. A lot of these problems are only solvable by expending more energy, and "more energy" is what got us into this fix in the first place

But in 50 years we will have clean, efficient fusion reactors. Just 50 years from now!!

# ? Dec 29, 2011 06:13

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

rscott posted:

Great Lakes are already about 10 or 15 feet lower than what they were back in the 50s IIRC.

Nothing like that. They've varied in the last century by 4-7 feet, and the current is lower than in the 50s and 90s but still above past lows. The future might be different, but for right now they're in the usual cycles.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 07:05

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

duck monster posted:

The boffins really need to hurry the gently caress up and work out a sustainable and cheap way of desalinating water that wont turn a water crisis into an energy crisis.

Actually thats the whole chinese-finger-trap nature of this fucker. A lot of these problems are only solvable by expending more energy, and "more energy" is what got us into this fix in the first place

Desalinating water is a matter of of either A) reverse osmosis or B) heating the gently caress out of things (flash distillation). Waste heat from nuclear plants is the only thing I can think of offhand as something that might work on a large scale.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 07:08

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Claverjoe posted:

Desalinating water is a matter of of either A) reverse osmosis or B) heating the gently caress out of things (flash distillation). Waste heat from nuclear plants is the only thing I can think of offhand as something that might work on a large scale.

Right or wrong though, theres fairly obvious political problems with putting Atomz near drinking water. poo poo, if dipshits can bitch and moan to the point of getting loving fluride taken out of water in some places because of EVIL CHEMICALS, good luck getting political support for allowing nuclear reactors anywhere loving near peoples drinking water.

I mean gently caress, I have a friend in mid-western america terrified she is going to get cancer because of Fukiyama, and nothing I can say to her will convince her otherwise, because she read a scary article on the internet.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 08:37

Jenny of Oldstones: Jul 24, 2002; Queen of dragonflies

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Hulu currently has the NOVA episode about the Antarctic Secrets Beneath the Ice available for streaming. Pretty interesting, different research shows water levels rising between 12-60 feet based on the amount of heating predicted to happen by the end of the century.

I'd like to see this, but NOVA doesn't stream outside the US.

duck monster posted:

Actually thats the whole chinese-finger-trap nature of this fucker. A lot of these problems are only solvable by expending more energy, and "more energy" is what got us into this fix in the first place

Indeed. I know I harp a lot on oil sands, but they pretty much drain the Athabasca River--65% of the water for the Alberta oil sands comes from the river. The glacier that feeds the river is shrinking (PDF)

# ? Dec 29, 2011 10:35

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

I detest the way governments will allocate loving massive amounts of water to industrial/mining uses while putting water rations on things like watering ones lawn. Well at least they do here.

Some mines here will use staggering amounts of fresh water , enough to supply multiple towns, meanwhile the local towns are being water rationed and people being fined for watering lawns whilst politicians pull their hair out over solutions to drier and drier dams.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 11:52

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

duck monster posted:

I detest the way governments will allocate loving massive amounts of water to industrial/mining uses while putting water rations on things like watering ones lawn. Well at least they do here.

Some mines here will use staggering amounts of fresh water , enough to supply multiple towns, meanwhile the local towns are being water rationed and people being fined for watering lawns whilst politicians pull their hair out over solutions to drier and drier dams.

Lawns are a waste of water, too. Particularly when they're watered during the day.

That's one of the things that disgusts me about Phoenix versus other cities in the southwest...they loooove their grass there, in the hottest populated part of the state, with the least rainfall. I may be retiring to the desert, but damned if I won't be taking my little piece of Ohio or wherever the hell with me. God gave man dominion over nature, and that's the end of the discussion!

Drop the Street View guy anywhere in Phoenix and you'll probably see grass. Drop him in Tucson, and unless he's next to a public park, you won't, and Tucson is 10 degrees cooler in summer, and gets 50% more rain.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 13:15

SirPablo: May 1, 2004; Pillbug

VideoTapir posted:

Lawns are a waste of water, too. Particularly when they're watered during the day.

That's one of the things that disgusts me about Phoenix versus other cities in the southwest...they loooove their grass there, in the hottest populated part of the state, with the least rainfall. I may be retiring to the desert, but damned if I won't be taking my little piece of Ohio or wherever the hell with me. God gave man dominion over nature, and that's the end of the discussion!

Drop the Street View guy anywhere in Phoenix and you'll probably see grass. Drop him in Tucson, and unless he's next to a public park, you won't, and Tucson is 10 degrees cooler in summer, and gets 50% more rain.

Suburban water use is actually less than the agriculture it is replacing (but yes still more than a xeriscaped lawn, though the irrigated lawns do provide a non-zero mitigating factor against the summer heat and urban heat island effect [argue if you will that the watering is than a net waste]). Parks and golf courses already use effluent water. And Tucson is not 10F cooler on average, more like 1-6F. That is partly due to elevation (Tucson is 1000' higher than Phoenix on average). The increase in rainfall (2.7" in Phoenix versus 6.2" in Tucaon) can be attributed to proximity to significant mountains and the more rigorous impact from the monsoon. Yuma actually gets less rainfall, about 3"/year.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 14:08

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

duck monster posted:

Right or wrong though, theres fairly obvious political problems with putting Atomz near drinking water. poo poo, if dipshits can bitch and moan to the point of getting loving fluride taken out of water in some places because of EVIL CHEMICALS, good luck getting political support for allowing nuclear reactors anywhere loving near peoples drinking water.

I mean gently caress, I have a friend in mid-western america terrified she is going to get cancer because of Fukiyama, and nothing I can say to her will convince her otherwise, because she read a scary article on the internet.

Desperate times have a remarkable effect of cutting away the bullshit, which I like to think of it (bullshit, that is) as a luxury good that people afford themselves when they are healthy and well fed. It'll happen, but there will be heaps of human suffering between where we are now and a more pragmatic approach to our infrastructure.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 21:00

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

duck monster posted:

I detest the way governments will allocate loving massive amounts of water to industrial/mining uses while putting water rations on things like watering ones lawn. Well at least they do here.

Some mines here will use staggering amounts of fresh water , enough to supply multiple towns, meanwhile the local towns are being water rationed and people being fined for watering lawns whilst politicians pull their hair out over solutions to drier and drier dams.

Yeah, industry uses tremendous quantities of fresh water. The tar sands in Alberta use huge quantities of glacier melt water to separate the oil from the sand, which of course in turn produce the c02 emissions that contribute to further depleting the glaciers.

# ? Dec 29, 2011 22:13

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

VideoTapir posted:

Lawns are a waste of water, too. Particularly when they're watered during the day.

Its a waste of water, but compared to the volumes used in mining, etc, its also a completely trivial and inconsequential waste too.

# ? Dec 30, 2011 05:54

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

It's relatively small but not exactly trivial. I seem to remember Like 10% of water used in Arizona went to domestic use... Though that probably includes stuff used for bathing and dishwashers and stuff. There's probably room to make many industries more water efficient but I'm sure there are some serious limits to how much can be cut. In contrast you could completely eliminate suburban lawns without costing anyone anything besides their hobby.

# ? Dec 31, 2011 00:34

Mr Chips: Jun 27, 2007; Whose arse do I have to blow smoke up to get rid of this baby?

duck monster posted:

I detest the way governments will allocate loving massive amounts of water to industrial/mining uses while putting water rations on things like watering ones lawn. Well at least they do here.

You mean things like this: http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3210776.htm ?

Mines running pipelines hundreds of km to take water from aquifers in barely viable farming regions.

# ? Dec 31, 2011 05:29

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Squalid posted:

It's relatively small but not exactly trivial. I seem to remember Like 10% of water used in Arizona went to domestic use... Though that probably includes stuff used for bathing and dishwashers and stuff. There's probably room to make many industries more water efficient but I'm sure there are some serious limits to how much can be cut. In contrast you could completely eliminate suburban lawns without costing anyone anything besides their hobby.

Its like this in some cities in Arizona. I know in Tuscon everyone has xeroscaped lawns, no grass or watering allowed.

# ? Dec 31, 2011 17:00

Atlas Hugged: Mar 12, 2007; Put your arms around me,
fiddly digits, itchy britches
I love you all

I've been fairly bothered by the idea of a crisis related to climate change lately. It seems like cutting down on emissions isn't going to happen. I'm not a scientist, but I've been trying to think about what the solution would be.

The only thing I could come up with was to find a way to remove carbon from the air with a device that created less CO2 than it captured.

In other words, we would need a device powered by something other than fossil fuels that could extract CO2 from the air.

I guess the best description would be a 'nuclear tree'.

So my question is if this is a viable method. Are there too many undeveloped technologies to make this a reality? Do we have a good enough understanding of photosynthesis to replicate it?

Now everyone who is smarter than me please explain why my idea is just science fiction and we're all doomed.

# ? Dec 31, 2011 22:27

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

I'm certain I saw something about a carbon absorption plastic that absorbed carbon in air and released it in water that was carbon negative throughout the manufacturing process and everything because of its potential.

Can't figure out what the guy's name was, though.

# ? Dec 31, 2011 22:39

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Haraksha posted:

The only thing I could come up with was to find a way to remove carbon from the air with a device that created less CO2 than it captured.

In other words, we would need a device powered by something other than fossil fuels that could extract CO2 from the air.

I guess the best description would be a 'nuclear tree'.

We already have something very similar to your "nuclear tree". It is purely solar powered, requires little to no maintenance and production is a cinch. You can call it the 'solar bio tree,' or more commonly, a 'tree'.

Other than regular trees a carbon sequestration system that requires large amounts of carbon neutral energy probably won't be practical until we've already transitioned away from a fossil fuel powered economy. In which case it might be more practical to wait for natural carbon sequestering processes to undo our damage than to start a huge carbon sequestration project.

I guess if you could create a way to sequester the carbon in fossil fuels as you are burning the stuff sequestration might become useful today, but most ideas for that I've heard were coming straight from the mouths of coal companies which made me a little wary.

# ? Jan 1, 2012 02:47

Konstantin: Jun 20, 2005; Can't post for 3 hours!

The problem is that a lot of these technologies are decades away, and we don't have that kind of time. If we had a huge government commitment similar to "We'll land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s" we would have a small chance of getting a technological solution, but good luck with that.

# ? Jan 1, 2012 05:28

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Yiggy posted:

Its like this in some cities in Arizona. I know in Tuscon everyone has xeroscaped lawns, no grass or watering allowed.

Watering is allowed...or at least, people do it. There was some dumb bitch who was watering her garden in her back yard almost every time I walked by in the afternoon. (You water your plants at night, retard!) Water running under her fence onto the street. The only upside is that she had a high fence and some shade trees, so it wasn't as bad as it could have been. And as far as I know there was no lawn.

# ? Jan 1, 2012 07:14

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Orbital Sapling posted:

I don't understand this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, have zero expertise in the field and (probably) no real experience in science and yet you still spout bullshit like this as if you have something of merit to contribute.

I can understand a little skepticism, but outright dismissing legitimate research here as irrelevant or propaganda based on feelings like "I don't like the margin of error" or calling it "insulting to my intelligence" is just worthless tripe.

My point was that a graph like this not going to do all that much to help anyone. Most people won't understand statistical certainty and error, and it will simply be dismissed as 'lawl scientists can't tell if its 1 degree or 6 degrees!'. If we are going to change things before its too late, we need something better than a 2070 graph that a lay person is not even going to understand.

# ? Jan 1, 2012 09:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 21:44

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Orbital Sapling posted:

I don't understand this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, have zero expertise in the field and (probably) no real experience in science and yet you still spout bullshit like this as if you have something of merit to contribute.

I can understand a little skepticism, but outright dismissing legitimate research here as irrelevant or propaganda based on feelings like "I don't like the margin of error" or calling it "insulting to my intelligence" is just worthless tripe.

duck monster posted:

I detest the way governments will allocate loving massive amounts of water to industrial/mining uses while putting water rations on things like watering ones lawn. Well at least they do here.

Some mines here will use staggering amounts of fresh water , enough to supply multiple towns, meanwhile the local towns are being water rationed and people being fined for watering lawns whilst politicians pull their hair out over solutions to drier and drier dams.

Agreed. Personal/home water conservation is a red herring and nothing will change for the better until we manage water from an industrial perspective.

# ? Jan 1, 2012 09:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »