Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Dinosaurs flailing, Europe is failing, CO2 over the top

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 3:15 p.m. EST by alouis (1511) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A guy who I don't know named Bill Appledorf made this comment in the New York Times online today. He says so well how things are now.

"U.S. taxpayers bailing out Europe coincides with 1,000 LA police in riot gear shutting down the last Occupy encampment in the U.S. and the U.S. Senate passing a bill to employ the U.S. military anywhere in the world, including inside the USA, to detain indefinitely and torture anyone, including U.S. citizens, the president says is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Meanwhile, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was announced last week to be 389 ppm while everyone knows that 350 ppm is the point of no return for our planet. The 1% are flailing dinosaurs, violently flapping their tails, destroying all the furniture in the room trying to maintain dominance in a system that is literally dying. There's your news. Now go back to sleep."

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by 666isMONEY (348) 3 years ago

Wonderful, thx 4 posting. There are so many 'signs of the times' telling us to get out of Babylon before things really get bad . . . ignorance is bliss. I see little hope for the change necessary to stop this train wreck. Just like the fictional story of Noah, so it is today.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

"Get out of Bbylon" and go where?

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 3 years ago

oregon, australia, new zealand or maybe paraguay . . . sustainable environments. There's a rumor that Bush bought 100,000 acres in paraguay . . . the plutocrats all have jets and yachts to escape.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 3 years ago

If you're going to leave don't go to places that have strong ties with the United States.

You know there's always the Scandinavian countries. They're always there if you're willing to pay your taxes instead of hoarding all your money like a cheap asshole.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Oh no... a conspiracy theory. What you don't realize it that if the Earth's atmosphere is polluted all the plantet is affected. Funny lad you are!

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 3 years ago

Some places will be affected worse than others. (Half of Florida was once under water.)

[-] 1 points by theCheat (85) 3 years ago

Yes, florida was under water, but that was before they banned hummers and coal fired electric plants.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 3 years ago

It is looking like the human species will be just a short flash in the history of the world. Geologically speaking we have only been here for the wink of an eye and our "intelligence" will soon simply vanish because it is overwhelmed by our own ignorance.

Civilizations come and go as we have seen by looking at history and species apparently do the same so it isn't a surprise that we just might extinguish ourselves. It seems to be the way of the world. I heard the other day that 98% of all the life that has ever been is extinct so why would we think it would be different for us?

It would have been nice if we had lasted a while longer to see where our species could have gone without greed and over population as our only true traits.

[-] 1 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 3 years ago

The humanity is a cancer and we are now in its terminal stage. It's too late to do anything. The politicians talk and talk just to save their privileged positions as far as this is possible. The world is no more a dominium, but only a place where it's impossible to live for the human race. The responsibles of this huge disaster say everyday a different lie. We risk a recession... the recession will start next year... the recession is already here... there's a hope to save ourselve yet... and so on. The confusion is enormous under the skies. The reins of the world are finished in the hands of a group of incompetent, ignorant, mean and criminal people.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

"The humanity is a cancer" speak for yourself please.

[-] 1 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 3 years ago

I've read this in a book written by an american philosopher who doesn't love liberism. However it's my opinion, too. I've the right to have my opinion, as you the right to have yours. The fact that you don't want respect other's opinion is another prove that America is no more a democracy.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You seem not only to want the right to your opinion, but you also claim a right not to be disagreed with. Who's the anti democratic one?

[-] 1 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 3 years ago

OK. Everyone has the right to have his opinion and to behave according to the way he thinks to be the best. I feel to be deeply democratic. As a matter of a fact I'm not poor, but I hate the capitalists who have destroyed the democracy, because this is is more important than money.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Don't worry they do...;)

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 3 years ago

So do we get violent now or what?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by genickgenau (22) from New York City, NY 3 years ago

The idea that the US are bailing out Europe demonstrates the complete cluelessness of the average Americans. Now they try to wreck free trade.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

How much does the US tax payer own in the IMF? Percentage? I know the ballpark number, do you?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

huh?

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

It's the end. We've passed the point of no return. There's no reason to try to change anymore. I'm just going to buy a lot of sex toys and play it nasty with my wife until we die. Farewell my friends!

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

'bye.

[-] -3 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Everyone doesn't agree or say that 350ppm is a "point of no return". Let's be real here, anthropomorphic global warming is not scientifically accepted. You all scream about money so much, follow the trail and see where it leads and who is set to get rich off "going green".

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Personally I have my doubts about this whole global warming thing too. I remember "the coming ice age"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

but still, the consensus seems to be that this warming is real, is seriously bad, is caused by human beings and can be addressed by reducing carbon emissions. I understand why people who accept these as facts are then very very upset with the politics and political leadership in the country and the world. Personally, I favor geoengineering approaches rather than draconian steps that slow down economic development.

[-] -1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

False. The consensus is not in about it. I'm not for pollution, but saying man is causing global warming is to reject obvious counter information and temperature records. Don't fall for the trap. They have used circumstantial evidence and treated it as facts for an agenda.

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Why not play safe until we know for sure? I'd rather pollute as least as possible no matter what the truth is about Global Warming. Are you another conspiracy theorist?

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]"

Just in case the 90% are right. Perhaps we should play safe.

"The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[139][140] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[141][142] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions."

"From 1990-1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[143]"

[-] -1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

I like throwing around quotes! Spend 10 seconds on google and you'll see that the consensus isn't even close to "strong" across the board.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Your source is absolutely biased: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

I receive scientific periodicals every day, and it's clear that scientists agree in a huge majority that Global Warming is ruining the planet and that it is caused by humans. I imagine you spend your time reading conspiracy websites?

I suggest you read reputable scientific journals and periodicals. Go to the library and read these and it will become clear to you that most scientists are in agreement that Global Warming is a major problem. Don't take my word, do your own research. Looking for info on lame biased websites is not going to help. The library is where it's at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

You can start your research with this Wikipedia entry. It gives the name of reports and scientists you can check out in the library by yourself. Have a good research. And stay away from conspiracy theory websites. If you want to know what scientists think, read serious peer-reviewed science journals.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]"

"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."


"In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[5]"

[-] -1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

I've done it. Trust me. Here you go, its like 450 pages. Have fun.

http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html

OR you can read the press report because it gets to the point and its shorter

http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/pressrelease.pdf

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

So that's your source. OK, I see the problem. This is a non-governmental group of scientists. They do not work at universities. Some are not really scientists and some are retired scientists. But, none of them are doing active research at universities. They represent a minority of scientists and not the majority. They are a very small fringe group. Again, I believe you should be careful about what you read. I suggest you go to the library and read proper peer-reviewed scientific journals. Go there, and spend an afternoon reading a whole bunch of them. You'll quickly see that 90% of scientists agree Global Warming is real. I work in a library. I see these periodicals everyday.

[-] -1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

"appeared in peer-reviewed science journals." and "The 430-page report was coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers: Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., editor of the online magazine CO2 Science and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life; Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Seven additional scientists and one policy expert on sustainable growth made contributions to the volume."

But you must know because you "work in a library".

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Yes, they are from a fringe group. Your source is highly dubious. They represent a small minority of thinkers. Every day I read science journals and periodicals during my lunch breaks. Some articles are in favor of Global Warming some are not. But, the vast majority agree that Global Warming is real, dangerous, and caused by humans. There is no use in debating this further. You can either read good sources, or not. If you are serious about this issue, I hope that one day you will take a moment to read peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of the Internet. I know it's a lot to ask, but I hope you can do it.

Like I said earlier, I'm not asking you to believe me at face value. I'm asking anyone who is reading and interested in this issue to research the matter for themselves using quality sources: peer-reviewed scientific journals. Don't believe me or dubious websites, research for yourselves. It's not that hard to go to your local library. I know it's not fashionable, but it's still not that hard.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Your using youtube to get an understand of what the majority of scientists agree on? Why are users of this forum so scared or using the library?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Just making the point that in my lifetime and not in ancient times scientists were warning about a coming ice age. I respect science. It's people who are called scientists I sometimes have trouble believing.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

That's why it's important not to read only one article by one scientist. If you take the time to go to the library and read many articles in peer-revied scientific journals, you will get the broad picture. It's really the best source and there is no other way. You can pull out journals for the last 3-4 years and browse through them quickly to get an idea of the overall consensus.

There's major difference with your example. It was a fringe group that warned of a new Ice Age, but now it's the consensus of scientists that warn of Global Warming. It's entirely different and cannot be compared. Again, you cannot just look at one article here and there. You must look at a vast number of articles to get the idea of the general scientific consensus.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I am not able or qualified to referee the dispute among scientists. What I know is the push to curtail global use of carbon based energy is not succeeding, and that it won't. I also know that Global warmists say that there is already more CO2 in the atmosphere than "the point of no return" and that the oceans are saturated to a point wherein if all CO2 emissions could cease (which of course can't happen) the oceans themselves arireparably damaged and they will continue emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. That's pretty grim. But then again, so was the coming ice age.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

1) Don't talk down to people about sources from peer reviewed articles, and a pile of real scientists, while you are not only a librarian, but you only give a quote from a single astrophysicist from Canada. 2) You reading during a break does not mean doing research. Again, you're a librarian. I attend a university where not only are we doing research on carbon nanotubes, which have ground breaking potential for energy, we also created a contact lens that can dispense medicine. My freshman year I attended a lecture by the man who discovered carbon 60. I'm not ignorant so quit referring to me like I'm a child. 3) You have thrown away all my sources without offering anything besides "they are dubious, I know , I'm a librarian". 4) Because it's not in print in your library, doesn't mean it isn't accurate. People use the internet these days. 5) In a debate, you can't just say someone is wrong and their source is inaccurate without a counter source. 6) Don't site wikipedia and then tell me to go read a scientific journal

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

"appeared in peer-reviewed science journals."!!!! That is peer reviewed. You work in a library and read during your lunch break.....SO FREAKING WHAT. My goodness it's almost comical.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago
[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I meant consensus of public opinion.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Which is, thankfully, not what we need to base things on. The public is ignorant.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I agree. We should base ourselves on what scientists are saying, not the majority of the public. Good point. This small excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Global Warming supports your claim.

"The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[139][140] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[141][142] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions."

"From 1990-1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[143]"

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Read this for starters, I mean there are millions of pages talking about the same thing (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled.html).

I noticed how you quoted the term "greenhouse gas", which I assume you think is CO2.

If you look at "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, they make up a small percentage. Water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, takes up around 75% of the greenhouse gases. In the total atmosphere, CO2 makes up .03%, of which we are not the most beneficial. Volcanoes and other natural events produce a lot as well.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Read my other comments. Your sources are dubious and of poor quality. Please take a moment to go to the library of a university near your home and read peer-reivewed scientific journals. You're reading dubious sources, and that's the problem.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

So anything that doesn't agree with your "sources" is dubious? You work in a library, get over yourself. You act like you're an expert.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

If you want to know what scientists think, the best source is peer-reviewed scientific journals. Period. It's not about being my source. It's the source of everyone. Again, take a moment to go to the library. If you want to know what highly trained and serious musicians think on a particular topic, you read highly distinguished music periodicals. It works the same way with scientists. You don't read dubious website to know what they think. They publish articles themselves in the peer-reviewed journals. That's where you can read them first hand!

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Read my other post. You saying "peer-reviewed scientific journals" does not make your point valid. To debunk another argument you must first provide another source that shows it is false.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I guess it's tricky to understand, but yes, scientists write in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I know it's hard and out of fashion, but, again, if you want to know what scientists think and what they are doing, you need to read the journals and periodicals in which day write. Not some dubious websites.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

I know what they are. The point is, and I'll spell this out real simple for you, is you can't just say "peer-reviewed" to make your point valid. You have yet to back up the claims that anything I have posted is dubious other than with your saying they are. Considering you are a librarian, you don't have any qualifications to thus discredit a source.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

One article from a peer-reviewed journal would not prove that the general consensus of scientists agree Global Warming is real and caused by humans. I am not here to win an argument, but to tell you and others that if you want to know what the scientific community thinks, you should read the works of these scientists in peer-reviewed journals and periodicals that you can easily find at your local library. This is a much better source than dubious websites created by fringe groups with agendas. In peer-reviewed journals, you will find all types of articles, and some will be in disagreement. It's an unbiased source that represents scientists as a whole. Again, I am not here to win an argument, but to give the readers the way towards the truth. It is for you and for them to be courageous and to take the chance of reading books. Libraries are scary for those who have never studied, I understand this. But, you will be surprised that the people who work there are quite nice, and you are always welcome to your university's library. It's an amazing resource, and you should make use of it.

It isn't important to me what you think. I wrote these comments for the other readers. I know you're caught up in conspiracy theories and you'll never read articles directly from the source.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

"you can't just say "peer-reviewed" to make your point valid."

My only claim is that to know what scientists think, you should read peer-reviewed scientific journals because that is where they write. It's non-biased with various points of views, not like your crappy links. Go directly to the source. It's simple. If you haven't been to a library, I invite you. It's easy and it's free. Just go to your nearby university.

Are you a conspiracy theory nut? Just curious.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Again, I guess you didn't get it, but you keep saying "peer reviewed". I get it. I know what they are. You have yet to offer a peer reviewed article saying anything against my points. You keep calling my sources dubious, without any evidence. You can't just say my arguments are invalid based on your bias. Provide evidence. All you keep saying is go to a library.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 3 years ago

You can bring a horse to water... But you cant make it drink

Plenty of these types around, like the flat earth society. Or 911 truthers

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I said personally I am skeptical of this claim of global warming, conveniently renamed "climate change" of late. I am pointing out that it is understandable why honest people who do accept it are hopping mad. Also, me personaly I'd want to hedge my bet here. I favor activities called "geoengineering." China, India, Africa and South America are just starting to use carbon based energy on a large scale and even if they embrace solar, the use of carbon based fuels is going to rise, as these people want automobiles, air conditioners, refrigerators, internet, etc. and I beleive theya re going to have those things.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Scientists are in agreement that Global Warming is real and caused by humans. The idea of geo-engineering is an interesting solution, but it's also important the cut the emissions which is a more direct solution to this dangerous problem.

"The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[139][140] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

"In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[141][142] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions."

"From 1990-1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[143]"

Hubert Reeves has excellent books on the issue of Global Warming and on the "controversy" that exists in the media, but not in academic circles.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

"Scientists are in agreement that Global Warming is real and caused by humans. The idea of geo-engineering is an interesting solution, but it's also important the cut the emissions which is a more direct solution to this dangerous problem." That statement is a blatant lie. There's no other way around it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

The problem is that you are reading dubious and biased sources. Again, read peer-reviewed scientific journals. Some of them have websites on the Internet. Don't read one-sided sites. There's really nothing to argue here. The problem is your sources, and you're the only one who can start using better ones. The Internet is full of dubious websites if you want to take the "wrong" conspiracy theorist viewpoint. Again, **pear-reviewed scientific journals"". Do not be afraid to go the the library at your local universities. Libraries are a better source of information than the Internet and the proper scientific journals well give you a better idea of what scientists think. I see them every single day. Scientists are clearly in agreement that Global Warming is real.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Your quote is from wikipedia and my sources are dubious?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

Wikipedia is less biased than your source. But, the reason I gave it can help you get a start. It provides names of scientists and names of organizations you can search for at the library. Remember, I said go to your local library.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

I can't reply to your last comment down there, so I will up here. Yet again, you provide no sources to back up your claims. You provide no sources showing what I have presented you is wrong. You just keep talking about reading in a library. We can all agree now that anthropomorphic global warming is false. Thanks for playing.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I'm not interested in backing up my claim that to understand how scientists think the best way is to read what they write in peer-reviewed journals. Only you and others can verify this by going at the library. That's the source. And, I'm only writing this to the readers on these boards. If they are interested in knowning what scientists really think, then they should read what scientists really write. They can do this at their university's library, and everyone is welcome. It's also free.

You can think what you want and read what you want. That's fine by me. My comments were directed at other readers, not at yourself. I know you are trapped in conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, there is no cure for this disease. The other readers will understand that, obviously, the best way to know what scientists think is to read peer-reviewed journals which contain articles these very scientists write. I know you can't understand, but that's OK. Did I mention peer-reviewed scientific journals yet?

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

We all know about peer reviewed sources for scientific information. It's not a secret. However you seem to not grasp the fact that you discount me as "a conspiracy theorist" and "reading dubious articles" without offering evidence. Are all librarians as retarded as you? Or are you the only self-indulged loser among them. I wish I could read during my lunch break and be smart like you! That's what all the smart people do right?

[-] -1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

L O L at that comment. ^

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I'm off to the library. You should go one day. Don't be scared of books. They are not your enemy. Some take longer to read than a few Internet pages, but they are well worth it. And, you might not know this, but you are invited to stop by at the library of any university any time you wish. Just look in peer-reviewed scientific journals and you can read articles from scientists all over the world. These journals are unbiased so you will see many points of view, unlike your dubious websites. You will get the info directly from the source, and you will be able to see what scientists really think about Global Warming. Don't be afraid of books! They are your friends. I am your friend. Let's read.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

Right. You know everything because you're a librarian. You have yet to respond to any of my posts with anything other than "go read a book". You can't provide any evidence discounting my points. You quote from wikipedia. You say the phrase "peer reviewed", thinking it will somehow make what you say right. You haven't brought anything to the table other than telling me to read a book. I win this debate. If that's all you can do then obviously your point doesn't have anything to stand on. Not only did I provide a 450 page shortened version of a report backing up my point, but I also provide other web pages/articles. You discount them saying they are "dubious" while not providing any evidence of them being as such or any other source to back up your claims of them being so. I know you work in a library, but that gives you about as much credibility as the cashier at McDonalds has. You read on your lunch break, do you want an award?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

To know what scientists think, read what they write in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Got straight to the source. Do not be afraid to read books from your university's library. Take the challenge, take the plunge!

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 3 years ago

It's completely false to say that academic and scientific circles agree it's even happening, let alone we are causing it. Global warming is completely falsified. Climate change, different story. Sorry, but saying otherwise is to lie.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

I'm not saying it the scientists are. Do you read scientific papers once in awhile? I do every day. Read Hubert Reeves.

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Then what happened to "the coming ice age"? and why has the term "global warming" been canned?

From what I read CO2 has supposedly already passed "the point of no return" and the oceans now hold enormous amounts that they supposedly emit or release. Seems pretty much hopeless, then as Chinese buy GM cars and Nigerians buy air conditioners. If the problem is as it is presented, then something rapid has to be done. That's why I would support geoengineering. To think you're going to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere soon is to dream that you can order the tide to cease.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 3 years ago

There's not doubt we are already in a deep crisis. The winters in Canada are so different than they were when I was a child, and the weather in Indonesia has changed so much in the last 5 years alone. We barely have a rainy season anymore and the farmers are left with dry fields.

You're right. We need geo-engineering since it's the fastest to implement solution. But, we also need to get electric cars on the market ASAP. Most of my friends in Canada now drive hybrid cars. That's good, but we need to create the infrastructure for electric cars. But, yes, I do agree with you that geo-engineering must be used ASAP.

Even those who doubt Global Warming should agree to diminish pollution. Nothing positive came come of it. It's extremely important to play it safe right now. The safer the better. If 90% of the scientists are wrong about Global Warming, then we'll just be left with a cleaner planet which is good anyhow. Reducing pollution is a win win situation no matter how you break it down.