Will you be ashamed?

[The Doctor.]

I'm quite serious in asking this question.

We have already seen the predictions of scientists on AGW/Climate Change coming to pass 10 or 20 years sooner than expected. Most of we scientifically literate folks understand what that means. It means that the reality is more dire than the predictions.

Many of you denialists are simply scientifically illiterate. While that is no excuse, there exists a chance you'll be honest with your grandchildren when they ask why you let the catastrophe happen. But you who know what you are doing, those of you who are aware that you don't understand, or worse; do understand yet still fight to prevent solutions from being implemented...

What are you going to tell your grandchildren?

When they have to ask you what salmon tasted like, because they will never know, ever, in their lifetimes.

When they have to look at relocation maps as parts of the world are under water.

When they see pictures of the pretty white beasts called 'polar bears' and ask where are they now.

When they ask you how people could have possibly lived in hurricane-wracked Florida, Texas, and Georgia.

When they don't understand that there was a time when more than 50% of children made it to adulthood.

When they ask if the government always had to ration food so scarcely and if they'd ever know what it was like not to be hungry all the time.

When they look at the differences between the world you enjoyed and the one they have to endure...


When you've seen just how all of these things really did come to pass; because many people with far better understanding of the issue than you could grasp desperately tried to keep the worst of the damage from happening, and you did your best to stop them. After you've looked back at the hundreds of millions of dollars the industries that might lose a few quarter's profit spent to keep you ignorant and reassured obstruction was the right thing to do. And AFTER you read a post on the internet so many years ago about what you would tell your grand-children and quietly, smugly, and to yourself thought, "Well, it's not going to happen, so I don't care." because denial is all you have right now...


What are you going to tell your grandchildren about how you helped create the devastation they live with?

Will you pretend you were on the side of the scientists, or will you admit that you were foolish and ignorant?

Either way, you WILL be ashamed.

Don't forget this post.

Ever.

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Unrec for unempirical histrionics

I will forget this sanctimonious post before I close this window.

[The Doctor.]

3. No, you won't. These things are happening *NOW*.

To claim this is 'sanctimonious' only displays your complete ignorance. It shows how little you understand, and that you have no grasp for how serious this issue is.

In 50 years, if we do not alter our behavior, the world will not look the same as it does now. There is nothing 'unempirical' about that.

So please, shove your pretentious bullshit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. So, it's happening *NOW*, but you're warning me about 50 years from now

I think climate change is real, but I'm getting tired of empty dire warnings.

[The Doctor.]

10. Empty?

You should try a site called "DemocraticUnderground.com". It has lots of stuff about what is happening *NOW*, and it indicates dire things indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x218986

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4158884

:D

[Greyhound]

17. Please, Doctor. Do you know with whom you are debating?

Is winning a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent really a win?

[11 Bravo]

179. In case you don't know, Doc, you're arguing with one named after a fictional football player who...

when it really mattered, got his light-running ass steamrollered by Billy Clyde Puckett.

[The Doctor.]

203. Well... isn't that sumpin'

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I have more research to do... thanks. ;)

[sojourner]

59. EMPTY? what world are you living in?

Already the world has changed dramatically from when I was a child. Melting ice caps......actually disappearing ice caps, spell DIRE change on its way and fast (way faster than 50 years I'd say). You can ignore the facts if you like, but you might ask then, if you are actually one of those to whom the OP addressed his post.

[The Doctor.]

64. It's bringing them out nicely.

Using enough attitude in a substantive OP gives them something to attack when they want to attack the issue but can't.

Neat, huh?

(But yes... I really am pissed off at the deniers and they should be ashamed.)

[sojourner]

68. i know. posted on a different topic and could not believe number of DUers who came out .

i am still shocked at the callous disregard they have for the pain of others. they (like the fundy christian conservatives) seem to seek their own feeling of personal security, and appear unable to handle feelings of guilt or shame. i am amazed to find them in such numbers here.

[Zhade]

186. I guess I'm not a good enough person not to wish them harm, then.

Ah well. I can't help feeling the rage I feel.

[Zhade]

185. I'm FURIOUS. They've helped destroy my son's future.

I promise this: I will WALK RIGHT PAST THEM as they starve. FUCK THEM. Let them die for their foolishness and leave the few remaining resources to those who didn't deny reality. I'm serious. I'm so angry, I wish deniers would fucking KILL THEMSELVES.

The world would be a better place with them gone.

[Better Today]

13. Even if we do something it won't look the as it does now. Be real.

[NoSheep]

2. I'm childless, therefore grandchildless. You WILL forget that.

Go preach to the freepers. Most of us get it here.

[The Doctor.]

5. This IS to the freepers.

Why would you include yourself, or think this was directed at you?

Do I really have to spell these things out?

[NoSheep]

7. I guess you do! btw, your subject line didn't warn me you were talking to freepers.

[The Doctor.]

9. Sorry... I thought the part about the denialists was enough.

Does it make sense now?

I'll have to modify and repost it I suppose.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. No need - There's enough denialists on DU

Freepers have the bulk of the numbers but it's not exclusive, sadly.

[The Doctor.]

52. I'm shocked at the numbers just in this thread.

Seriously... I thought I might draw out a few with the ploy, but I'm really disappointed that it snared a bunch of long-timers.

You see, when someone cannot attack the substance of a post, they are left to attack the attitude of the author. Most denialists around here are careful enough not to openly show ignorance of substance lest they become marginalized or TS'd. But give them something else to go after, and they can attack with abandon.

This has been particularly revealing. You seem to be, sadly, quite correct.

[tavalon]

15. I think it's a safe assumption that you are speaking to us because you put it on

DU not FreeRepublic.

[The Doctor.]

21. Apologies...

What business did I have assuming that I was posting where people could read? That, and I'm not going to cash out my freeper log-in just yet.

[LWolf]

43. Yes.

Because if your post was directed to freepers, it should have been posted at free republic, where they could all engage in the topic with you.

[The Doctor.]

46. Is that a joke?

There are a vast number of denier trolls on DU right now. This is for them.

I'm honestly starting to believe this post would receive almost exactly the same reception on FR as it has here.

[LWolf]

54. It's not a joke.

Every time a DUer posts a rant directed at non-DUers, the answer is always the same: there are trolls!!!

Granted, there are some who troll.

If you really wanted to make a point, though, why post it here, in safety, where they can't engage you? Where they are a tiny fraction of the audience you are trying to reach? Why not post it where it will reach more, and you can engage them directly?

It seems kind of passive-aggressive, to me.

Why not post stuff for DUers at DU, and for others elsewhere?

[The Doctor.]

66. Did you really just ask that?

The ONE impartial site on the web; 'AmericasDebate', no longer allows AGW threads. That, and they don't allow rants.

Any denialist site would just delete it as well as my vested login.

So tell me; Think I should go post this at FR?

[LWolf]

84. Yes. I think you should post this at FR, since that's where your audience is. nt

[The Doctor.]

163. So there are no trolls or deniers on DU, huh.

I'll put you down as 'chronically naive'.

[sojourner]

63. they walk among us. they 'claim' democratic values but they drank the kool-aid

and have lost their souls. but they will fight to the death for their favorite politician or against their most hated one.

[Quantess]

12. I don't know about that...

There are a surprising number of registered DUers who are climate change deniers/skeptics. Whether they have dual membership at FR is certainly possible, but still. There are too many DUers with their heads stuck in the sand.

[ShortnFiery]

187. +1

[emilyg]

4. I'll forget this op rather quickly.

[The Doctor.]

6. Soooo... you don't believe Climate Change and the deniers are a problem?

They've been swarming the board lately. You support them?

[obliviously]

51. What OP?

[lapfog_1]

11. Well, if the "they" you speak of are 20 somethings.

They won't tell their grandchildren anything... they won't have any (or many) grandchildren to tell stories to.

Forget all the other stuff, we eat oil. Without oil we don't feed (however poorly) 6+ billion. We don't feed 2 billion people. Chances are, we don't feed .5 billion. Oil makes the fertilizer, oil makes the machinery of modern farming go, oil pumps the water from underground to water the fields, and oil allows the farmers to ship their crops everywhere. If we are simultaneously facing a tipping point with global warming AND peak oil, there won't be any grandchildren. Not without some real wrenching shifts in how humans on this planet work.

Shifts that may not be technically possible yet. Shifts that will be economically unpleasant (to say the least).

And, btw, even if tomorrow we did not burn another drop of fossil fuel AND still do all the things we do now, there still won't be any salmon (or cod or tuna or ...) left in 50 years.

[Better Today]

14. Right now, today, I am much more concerned about shame regarding HCR and the issue

of the economic situation for middle class persons than I am about global warming. IF we give our grandchildren no hope of satisfying well paid employment wherein they receive deserved respect, and some way or another (preferably single payer) to stay healthy without going bankrupt. . . then I'll be ashamed for sure.

[MH1]

196. it's fairly guaranteed, then

that you'll be ashamed.

Climate change is going to have a far bigger impact on this generation's grandchildren than whatever minor tweaking of our health care system eventually escapes Congress.

[cali]

18. Nope. It is what it is and it shall be what it becomes.

[timeforpeace]

19. This is an example of why the undecideds will break against global warming action. So over the top

even an independent can see through it.

[The Doctor.]

23. If someone makes up their mind based on a post like this,

then they weren't going to be 'for' action in the first place. It also means they didn't read and understand the post... again; making it unlikely they would understand enough of the issue to be anything more than useless anyhow.

I just love all of you 'Oh noes! Being mad maight offendz someonez!'.

Nance Greggs and a lot of other DUers hear that shit all the time too.

If you aren't mad, you're not paying attention.

[Morning Dew]

115. If your OP was directed at freepers

AND you didn't expect anyone to make up their mind based on your OP, then what's the point?

[The Doctor.]

121. It is. They're here.

As well as non-freep denialists.

I don't care if anyone makes up their mind based on the OP. That was not its purpose.

It had 2, actually;

1) So that when the world falls apart, a few extra folks might remember that they were part of the problem and have a harder time being dishonest about it.

2) To draw out some of the denialists and tag 'em.

Spectacular success on '2' so far. We'll see about '1' in a few decades.

[Edweird]

20. Maybe a little geological perspective will help you.

Here is where we entered a period of rapid glacial cycles:



The big picture is beyond your control.

[The Doctor.]

22. Interesting.

Perhaps you should exercise some perspective of your own.

Tell me, just when has CO2 and subsequent temperature rises occurred as rapidly as it has over the last 100 years? (That's 100, not 1,000,000, or even 1000.)

Do you not get that?

[Edweird]

45. I see. "Scientifically literate", but no clue about Geology.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

[The Doctor.]

50. 'No clue' indeed.

I asked you a question, you can't answer.

Now, please explain how your post was in any way relevant to the OP. Then maybe we can have an actual discussion.

[Edweird]

81. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old. Rapid geological events take place over thousands or

tens of thousands of years. Asking for proof of anything over a period of 100 years is either 'scientifically illiterate' or deliberately disingenuous. The earth has changed dramatically many many times since it's origins. I posted the graphs to point out how, despite your arrogant "Look what YOU have done to MY planet!" histrionics, the earth is doing what it normally does. It warms. It cools. The continents shift. The polar ice caps melt. The poles refreeze. Life forms come and go. Sometime they go with rapid mass extinctions. That's just the way it is.

[The Doctor.]

87. Wow.

So you are ignorant after all.

The point was simple; A change of this speed and magnitude has not occurred before without killing vast swaths of life. (We're talking dinosaurs too)

All your garbage of 'it's natural' goes right out the window in the face of that fact.

[Edweird]

97. LOL. Cognitive dissonance much?

"The point was simple; A change of this speed and magnitude has not occurred before without killing vast swaths of life. (We're talking dinosaurs too)"

Extinctions happen quite often.
"Life forms come and go. Sometime they go with rapid mass extinctions. "

"All your garbage of 'it's natural' goes right out the window in the face of that fact."

So the fact that 'the dinosaurs' (you fail to specify exactly WHICH extinction event you are referring to - surprising since you crow about your "scientific literacy") died off somehow makes any future extinction 'unnatural'? Seriously? And you are calling me ignorant? That's laugh out loud funny.

Here's some interesting reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

There were palm trees and ferns at what we now refer to as 'The North Pole".

[The Doctor.]

101. So because YOU can't find an example of what's occurring now ever

having occurred before, I'm displaying 'dissonance'?



Seriously... you're being ignorant. "It's been warm before" does not address the rapidity with which it is happening now.

[Edweird]

107. It appears that your concept of 'scientific literacy' means calling those that use facts ignorant.

The reality is that the climate has changed dramatically over the course of the earth's existence. It will continue to do so. The reason WHY there's no example of "what's occurring now happening ever" is because there is NO permanence. Again, see the graph:


Show me where out of this you have any right to expect things to remain as they are. "This has never occurred before" is how we roll on this blue orb.

Wait, lemme guess. I bet you are a creationist that thinks that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and we just fucked it all up in the last 200 years.

[The Doctor.]

111. LMAO! Wow. No, I call people that IGNORE the facts 'ignorant'. The way you've just

ignored what I've asked you repeatedly.

There is a trend occurring right now that has no other explanation, either in the past or in the present, than us.

Explain why, for the first time in all of our records dating back millions of years, temperature rise is following co2 rise?

Sure... 'weird shit' has happened before, and then, just as now, there was an explanation. This time, the only explanation is humanity.

I know... you haven't received your talking points to deal with it yet.

Let me know when you get them.

[Edweird]

126. I'm providing actual facts and data to support my position, and all you are

bringing is "prove a negative on my terms" and "you're ignorant". Show me where, in the previous warming periods, that it IS the first time. Prove it. Then we'll go from there. All you're doing is trolling. Now put up or shut up.

[The Doctor.]

143. Yet not one of those 'facts and data' addresses the point.

Show us just when in your time frame something similar occurred.

That's not 'proving a negative', btw. What you are asking me to do, OTOH, is.

That means that you're either being an idiot, or deliberately disingenuous.

I'm asking you to show an example. You're asking me to prove it never happened. That's not how it works. You'd know that if you understood simple logic.

[Edweird]

145. Just as I thought. You got nothin'. No facts. Just jackin' your jaw. How pathetic.

Here's a few examples for you. 3 nearly identical temperature and CO2 fluctuations, with CO2 leading and temperature trailing.

Whoever told you that you are "scientifically literate" is wrong.

[The Doctor.]

169. According to your graphs, I'm exactly right. Thanks.

CO2 Precedes temperature increase. Humans put out billions of tonnes of CO2 per year. CO2 levels have nearly doubled since Humans started burning fossil fuels. Temperatures have increased along with CO2 levels.

K, thanks for that. (Those above things are called 'facts' btw)

Now, I've asked you several times to show when, during those millions of years, did CO2 levels rise as fast within a 200 year period.

You've failed. You suck at this. You should be ashamed.

[Edweird]

182. Blah blah blah. Where's the evidence of an anomaly? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

If you can't prove that there is an anomaly, then there isn't one. Your word doesn't cut it. I guess you are too ignorant to have known that.

[The Doctor.]

183. Ok, got it...

You're a moron.

I made a statement of fact. It is proven that CO2 levels have risen more dramatically in the last 200 years than in any 200 year period before inexplicably. You've posted the proof yourself. Then, you want me to somehow prove a negative... that 'it never happened'. If you dispute the claim, it is YOUR burden to disprove. Not mine.
You are a moron. You don't belong in any thread where science or logic are required.

B-Bye.

[Edweird]

197. So you don't have evidence of an anomaly then? You keep posturing and spouting off, but no data...

Either there is an anomaly, or there isn't. If there is, show me the data. If not, then man up and admit it.

This whole thing makes me laugh. If I am so "scientifically illiterate" and "ignorant" , it should be a piece of cake to pull up some (legitimate!) documentation that refutes the geological data I have provided. Why haven't you done so?

I know why.

Because you can't.

Everything I have provided is sound and accepted. Hell, the 420,000 year ice core study was done by the US government. None of it, when viewed as a whole, supports your position. So you bluster and bray, attempting to change the topic and while hoping no one notices.

Again, let's see (legitimate!) documentation of an anomaly in the current heating/cooling cycle we are in relative to the previous three.

PS, the only actual SCIENCE was provided by myself. You have provided none. Your judgment of my fitness is a sorry joke.

Show me the anomaly.

[Zhade]

188. No, you're not. At all.

Fucking liar.

[Edweird]

194. "fucking liar"? Prove it!

But you can't. Which is why you went for the insult. Impotent ineffectual rage. It makes me laugh.

[Edweird]

131. That's what I thought. Here's 420k years of ice samples

(ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station) that say you are full of shit.

"Explain why, for the first time in all of our records dating back millions of years, temperature rise is following co2 rise?"

It isn't the first time.





If you have anything else, bring facts and supporting documentation or don't bother me.

[Quantess]

136. Sorry, but your graph isn't convincing me to change my mind about climate change.

If that's all you've got, then that's not much.

[Edweird]

139. Yeah, I know. It's only geology and all that.

First off, I would like to point out that I don't dispute THAT the climate is changing. In fact, that's all it's done since the origins. It's either going up or down. There are no horizontal lines. My issue is with WHY it's happening and how that relates to the OP's finger pointing self-righteousness and avoidance of real scientific data (while calling others "scientifically illiterate" and "ignorant").

If you choose to ignore science, or cherry pick data to suit your agenda, then so be it. I encourage you to look through my posts and try to find anything factually incorrect or unsupported by the general scientific community.

I'm not a geologist. I'm also not a 'freeper'. I am a guy that has a nasty habit of thinking for himself and this is what I found. Your mileage may vary. I generally don't post in these types of threads since it is such a polarizing issue, but I found the OP to be offensive and insulting. IOW, if you disagree with what I have found, it's cool. There are many different views on the subject. Insult my intelligence or literacy, however, and I will take you to task over it.

[Quantess]

140. Calm down, please. I have done nothing of the sort.

All I meant was that your graphs are less convincing (to me), that the recent climate change is not out of the ordinary, than you seem to think they are.

[Edweird]

142. I'm calm :)

I wasn't implying that you had said anything like that. I was only attempting to explain my interaction with the OP. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, nor am I accusing of trying to pick one with me. We're cool.

Is this one any better? It is 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

[Quantess]

144. I'm not out to attack anyone who puts up a scientifically based rationale for questioning the OP

As it so happens, I just watched An Inconvenient Truth for the first time last night. Al Gore also brought out the ice core data from Antarctica, but interpreted it much differently. The graphs were charted a bit differently, with a lot more focus on the past 50 years showing an acute rise, coinciding with elevated CO2 levels.

Anyway, thanks for posting the graphs and charts.

[Edweird]

146. That's the thing. If you only focus on the last 50-100-200 years, you're not getting the whole

picture. Geology doesn't work like that. "Rapid" in geological terms means 1,000-10,000 years.

[Quantess]

147. Sure, but how else can a graph emphasize the changes brought about

by the steeply increasing CO2 emissions in the past decades? Your graphs minimize the last few decades to the point of hiding them.

[Edweird]

150. The graph shows CO2 rise followed by temperature rise, with a fall in both

afterward. Based on that graph I'd say we are due for some serious winter for about 100,000 years coming in the next 10,000 years or so. I fail to see how humans have 'created' any of this. These cycles were in place long before now. The earth has a mechanism in place to deal with excess CO2 and whatever it is will be triggered eventually. From all I can glean, the past 200 years have squat to do with it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

155. The argument you are making is ridiculous. Essentially you are arguing that since

the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past that the current warming isn't man made. That is a complete non sequitur. Just because warming and cooling happened for other reasons at other times does not mean that it isn't happening for totally different reasons right now. That you could make such a vapid, fallacious argument and represent yourself as someone who "thinks for himself" in the same discussion is amusing.

I guess is it is not surprising to see you include an argument from ignorance fallacy here when you state " I fail to see how humans have "created" any of this". Just because you don't know or understand what the reasons are does not mean there aren't any. It is pretty simple really.

1) We know from the same theoretical physics that modern industry utilizes constantly, that certain gases trap IR radiation analogous to insulation.

2) We know that in our own solar system these gases (mostly C02) have a very strong effect on Venus. The greenhouse effect there makes that planet hotter than Mercury even though it is twice as far from the Sun as Mercury. The Earth too is hotter than just Sun energy would suggest. These are both confirmation of the greenhouse effect and validation of the theoretical physics.

3) We know that rises in CO2 on the Earth have led to higher temperatures in the past (as your own graphs demonstrate). You seem like you might recognize this fact which is very very odd.

4) Very very odd because we know that CO2 concentrations are rising here on Earth and we know for sure that the rise is coming from man-made emissions. We know this from isotopic analysis of the CO2 itself. Carbon comes in various varieties (C12, C13, C14). As the concentration of CO2 has increased in the atmosphere the ratio of C12 to C13 has increased. The fossil fuels we burn are mostly C12 so the changing ratio tracks the sources we are releasing.

a) That we are the source of the increase should be pretty obvious to begin with. We release very large quantities every year. It is conceivable that all of it is absorbed but no one should be surprised that the data shows it is not.

b) What is so odd to me is that you seem to understand that CO2 has driven heat changes in the past. Were you completely unaware of the common sense and data that shows we are adding large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere?

The thing about climate research is that based on these few basic facts, it should be obvious to everyone that, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume that the CO2 humans are releasing will have a warming effect on the planet. There isn't.

You don't just have another opinion on the subject. You have WRONG opinion of the subject that seems to based on nothing except faulty logic and ignorance.

[Edweird]

158. Sorry, but it takes more than "I'm right and you're wrong because you're stupid" or whatever.

So, we whip out the A/V equipment again.



In the graph above there are marks denoting 50,000 years. Each of the smaller tick marks is 10,000 years. The last 200 years is smaller than the POINT at the end of the line. The funny thing is, it looks like the temperatures have already peaked and are preparing to fall. If you believe that suddenly WE are responsible for it - well that's your choice. I see the earth doing what it does - and what it would be doing if we weren't even here. (I was tempted to say "normally", but there is NO normal)


I'm sure you have more evidence than just an unpleasant attitude, right? So show me how the CO2/temp peak NOW is SO different than the ones before (this one isn't even the highest). Please make it more substantial than "It was hot this morning and now it's cold this afternoon so global warming must be real".
"I'm right and you're wrong because I said so" doesn't cut it - no matter how many times you say it.

[The Doctor.]

164. Well ain't you a one-trick pony.

Those super-duper graphs and charts you have there don't even address the points Imperialism.inc made, nor the points I've made. You've made no attempt to address or even understand what's been presented to you.

That makes you ignorant. That's not an insult, that's a fact proven by your complete unwillingness to listen, learn, or think.

So what's it like to be that way? It's something I'll never understand.

[Edweird]

174. When you have some, you know, SCIENCE to support your position, let me know.

PS, the personal attacks are a dead giveaway that you are a sore loser. It brings warmth to the cockles of my heart. :)

[Imperialism Inc.]

172. You might want to whip out a dictionary and look up the meaning of ignorant.

It means without knowledge. That is different from being stupid.

I already demolished the "argument" you made with that graph. It is a non sequitur (i.e. a logical fallacy) to claim that because temperature has changed for other reasons in the past that it is not possible for it to be due to human activities now.

As far as making my case I already did! As the doctor points out you completely ignored everything I said. Your lame response just tells me you probably aren't worth wasting any time on. I thought that maybe you would be reachable if you could see where your thinking went wrong but it appears that is not the case. You are either too dense, too stubborn, or you have an ideological agenda.

[Edweird]

173. So, where's the evidence? All you're doing is crying about how the science doesn't support your

position. So suddenly, according to you, it 'doesn't count'. This isn't 3rd grade recess where you get to make the rules up as you go along. You're using words like 'decimated' and calling others ignorant while failing to provide ONE SHRED of evidence to support your position. I would almost feel sorry for you if you hadn't put so much effort into insulting me instead of supporting your position with data. How utterly and miserably pathetic.

As far as my alleged 'logical fallacy', well, take that up with Mr. Milankovitch or Mr. Sharma. But, I'm pretty sure they don't give a fuck about what you think either.

You are accidentally correct about one thing. You won't be changing my mind anytime soon (especially using insults instead of data). I considered the global warming argument and looked at the facts for myself. I made my decision and I'm standing by it. Every further bit of research reinforces my position. Since this is such a polarizing and divisive issue I typically don't bring my views up since hysterical self-important ideological zealots such as yourselves make any rational discussion impossible.

[billh58]

133. The very same

self-centered vanity that brought about the invention of religion, and its "promise" of a second shot at life (because wonderful self-aware beings like ourselves can not possibly just die), is also driving the notion that mankind should somehow be exempt from extinction because of our superior intellect and killer good looks.

Evolution is driven by both natural forces, and the propensities of the various forms of life on this very minor planet, in this very minor solar system. Yes there is global warming, and yes it is most likely being accelerated by man-made pollution, and yes we are ALL to blame. And yes, this is all a very natural part of the cyclical evolution of both the planet AND our species.

Can we do something about it at this late stage of the game? Maybe, but only if we can rapidly change our society world-wide to become caring, loving, and single-minded. Or, if a few of us can find another habitable planet and devise a way to get there. Otherwise, just like the dinos became birds, our descendants will be another evolved species with most of our genes, and hopefully none of our presumptuous vanity.

[Tejas]

24. delete

my bad

[The Doctor.]

40. I'm shocked at the number of scientifically illiterate folks here on DU.

More than that; the vast number of people who are simply deliberately ignorant.

[Tejas]

42. Gosh, nothing like a condescending jerk to cheer people up.

Bet you're a hit at parties.




More flies with honey blah blah.....

[The Doctor.]

48. I don't tolerate willfully ignorant people. If you feel I'm behaving intolerantly,

then you should consider who I'm dealing with.

So, you don't believe AGW is a problem?
You think that the denialists should not be ashamed?
Do you believe we should not point these things out?

If the answer to those is 'no', then complaining about my 'tone' makes you a hypocrite.

[The Doctor.]

25. Climate Change Deniers; Will you be ashamed?

I'm quite serious in asking this question of you.

We have already seen the predictions of scientists on AGW/Climate Change coming to pass 10 or 20 years sooner than expected. Most of we scientifically literate folks understand what that means. It means that the reality is more dire than the predictions.

Many of you denialists are simply scientifically illiterate. While that is no excuse, there exists a chance you'll be honest with your grandchildren when they ask why you let the catastrophe happen. But you who know what you are doing, those of you who are aware that you don't understand, or worse; do understand yet still fight to prevent solutions from being implemented...

What are you going to tell your grandchildren?

When they have to ask you what salmon tasted like, because they will never know, ever, in their lifetimes.

When they have to look at relocation maps as parts of the world are under water.

When they see pictures of the pretty white beasts called 'polar bears' and ask where are they now.

When they ask you how people could have possibly lived in hurricane-wracked Florida, Texas, and Georgia.

When they don't understand that there was a time when more than 50% of children made it to adulthood.

When they ask if the government always had to ration food so scarcely and if they'd ever know what it was like not to be hungry all the time.

When they look at the differences between the world you enjoyed and the one they have to endure...


When you've seen just how all of these things really did come to pass; because many people with far better understanding of the issue than you could grasp desperately tried to keep the worst of the damage from happening, and you did your best to stop them. After you've looked back at the hundreds of millions of dollars the industries that might lose a few quarter's profit spent to keep you ignorant and reassured obstruction was the right thing to do. And AFTER you read a post on the internet so many years ago about what you would tell your grand-children and quietly, smugly, and to yourself thought, "Well, it's not going to happen, so I don't care." because denial is all you have right now...


What are you going to tell your grandchildren about how you helped create the devastation they live with?

Will you pretend you were on the side of the scientists, or will you admit that you were foolish and ignorant?

Either way, you WILL be ashamed.

Don't forget this post.

Ever.

[notesdev]

26. Projection

is an ugly thing. Not the first time one will see the shameless attempting to shame others, I suppose, and not the last.

[The Doctor.]

29. What's with defending the deniers?

Are you saying they needn't be ashamed of what they are doing?

Or are you saying I have no right to suggest they should be?

DUers constantly post rants about how shameful people behave on the right. Why do you defend them?

[notesdev]

32. Absolutely not, and your choice of words is quite offensive

I can't believe you equate your catastrophist fantasies with the Holocaust.

Have you no sense of decency at all?

[The Doctor.]

36. WTF are you talking about? Why are you talking about the Holocaust now?

I think you're reading a different thread. Either that or your one of those terminal indignation-mongers.

"Well, I NEVER." - I doubt that.

Please, be specific... just what was 'indecent' about anything I wrote. Let's have a quote.

[PaulaFarrell]

86. He IS a denier

seems to be changing his tack but a full-fledged denier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x497513

amusingly enough, he said i'd made an 'ad hominem' attack for calling him a conspiracy theorist, and I've now seem him call others the same thing. thought i'd seen the last of him but I guess it was just his shift hadn't started yewt

[The Doctor.]

93. Managed to nab a bunch of them here.

It's such a simple trick, but my how well it works!

Admittedly, some here are just chronic indignation-seekers. They just love to fault everyone else for displaying any outrage.

[Quantess]

137. ...take a good guess...

"DUers constantly post rants about how shameful people behave on the right. Why do you defend them?"

[cali]

27. you already posted this.

what's the deal in posting it twice?

[The Doctor.]

28. A few people couldn't be bothered to recognize toward whom this was directed.

So I clarified it.

What I don't get is all the sympathy people around here have for the deniers.

[cali]

31. I don't think people here have sympathy for the deniers so much as

they dislike your heavy handed sanctimony.

[The Doctor.]

53. Well then;

Are you saying that;

A) Climate change is not a problem, and I should therefore not make a fuss?

B) Deniers needn't be ashamed of their cause?

C) I haven't the right to be angry and tell them they should be ashamed?

If the answer to those is no, then you're a little bit twisted. Plenty of DUers engage in 'heavy-handed sanctimony' without suffering the pseudo-indignation of creatures like yourself.

But that is with different subjects and about people you disagree with.

Soooo... the only conclusion is that you're either a raging hypocrite, or your answer to one or all of the above questions is 'yes'.

[cali]

56. No. I'm saying you didn't put it well.

I'd be glad to rewrite it for you so that you can understand.

As for your questions:

A) Climate change is a problem.

B) Those who don't understand that it's a problem- and I'm talking about the rank and file that you're addressing, need to be educated rather than shamed.

C) You have every right to be angry with whomever you please. I have every right to express what I feel about your less than helpful op.

simple stuff really. All you need to do understand is apply a little logic. If you have that capacity.

[The Doctor.]

67. Ok, after you've re-written all of

DUs posts that did not meet your standard of 'stern but gracious', then I'll retract my 'hypocrite' comment.

Until then, you're a bit 'selective' over which rants require adjustment.

Meanwhile, I'd LOVE to see your rewrite of this OP.

I'm perfectly serious... let's have it.

[cali]

71. What I'd love to know is how you live and what you're doing

about climate change other than writing rather poor screeds on DU. Do you own a car? Do you use heating oil or gas? Do you buy largely local food, etc?

[The Doctor.]

78. Change the subject much?

Run cali! Run from the subject!

Can't face yer own hypocrisy? Don't want to look 'defensive'? Just change the subject!

This should be below you.

Better to just go.

[cali]

83. now you're just babbling idiotically, sweetie.

desperate much, doc?

[The Doctor.]

92. ???

You haven't addressed one point of substance and I'm 'desperate'?

Oh honeypie... I really wish I could help you.

(Haven't figured it out yet, have you?)

[The Straight Story]

30. Difference between deny it and the cause of it (nt)

[imdjh]

33. blah blah if you disagree with me you're ignirent blah blah you're illitirit blah blah blah

Same shit different sphincter.

[The Doctor.]

44. That's what funny about deniers; they think this is about identity, not science.

I'm sure if I said; "Anyone who doesn't agree that the Earth revolves around the sun is ignorant.", you'd also say; 'blah blah if you disagree with me you're ignirent blah blah you're illitirit blah blah blah'

This isn't about 'me', or Al Gore, or any of the individual scientists, it's about the reality.

Frankly, if you disagree with really, then yes... you are ignorant.


Now, just what about anything in the OP do you disagree with?

[cali]

34. you may be scientifically literate but you ought to work on your

plain old grammar skills.

"Most of we scientifically literate folks..."

nope. that would be "most of us..."

[The Doctor.]

38. I tend to consider my target audience.

I sometimes say 'y'all' and 'yer' too.

Please be sure to be around when that happens so you can point it out.

Thanks.

[cali]

49. lol. defensive, huh? good. you should be.

love the bullshit excuse for your atrocious grammar, dear.

[The Doctor.]

57. Wow... another person that can't tell the difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive'.

I shouldn't be surprised that when someone like yourself cannot address anything specific, they go after speeling and grammer.

Have at it wisp. You've proven your uselessness just fine in this thread.

[cali]

62. oh, I can tell the difference. you, oth......

you're a wee bit slow on the uptake, honeypie.

[The Doctor.]

69. Why be so defensive?

You really don't get it?
So here you are behaving so condescendingly toward me for behaving condescendingly.

So far, you've only proven yourself a hypocrite.

[cali]

73. "only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy"

not that I've been hypocritical at all in this thread. It's clear you don't understand what the word means.

You can look up the quote, Mr. Literate.

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

80. No, of course you haven't been.

Just sanctimonious about the OP, my grammar, and everything I was 'sanctimonious' about.

Huh... waitaminute...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/HYPOCRITE


So it's wrong to be sanctimonious. Got it. Try to be less sanctimonious about it.

:silly:

[cali]

82. continuing the fail, I see.

Nope, I wasn't being sanctimonious. I was being contemptuous.

[The Doctor.]

90. Because you can't be substantive.

That's just sad.

You could, at any time, try and deal with any point of substance I've raised in the OP or subsequent replies. But you can do nothing but 'cast asparagus'.

Why is that?

[cali]

95. let me ask you a substantive question:

Who has more cause to feel shame?

A) some working guy (or gal) who doesn't believe that climate change is real or perhaps just doesn't rate it up there in his/her day to day concerns, but lives a fairly modest life and has a pretty small carbon footprint or

B) a wealthy liberal who believes that climate change is real and a real threat and lives in 5,000+ square foot house and jets off frequently to Paris or wherever?

[The Doctor.]

98. Neither.

If 'A' is not actively fighting against that which he/she does not understand or 'rate', then they have no net impact.
If 'B' is taking measures that otherwise reduce their own footprint, and contributing in a positive way, then they are behaving, to some degree, responsibly.

If we reverse the values, then the answer would be 'both'.

[cali]

100. I disagree, but you've made it clear that your op was ill stated

If you're only talking about the people "active fighting against the science of climate change", you should have made that clear.

[The Doctor.]

103. That might be a fair clarification...

but I'm talking about anyone that does anything to stem a solution.

'A' more likely fits that criteria.

[cali]

104. seems to me that 'B' fits that criteria

as 'B' is the one contributing more toward environmental degradation by his/her lifestyle.

[The Doctor.]

116. Another unknown.

Perhaps 'B' is a hypocrite, or perhaps 'B' gives a substantial part of his time or resources to helping the cause as someone aware of the gravity would.

More than likely, 'B' is doing something, however small.

[Tutankhamun]

61. A grammar flame? Really? Quit posting stupid stuff Cali.

[cali]

65. I'll post what I please, dear.

Don't like it? Aw, poor wittle you.

[Tutankhamun]

74. It's inane and only serves to add "noise" while reducing the level of discourse.

I sometimes agree with your posts, Cali, but this one didn't add anything. I just wish you would stick to your more relevant posts and not be descend into bickering.

[Edweird]

35. Here's your science. Have fun.

Here is where we entered a period of rapid glacial cycles:



The big picture is beyond your control.

[imdjh]

37. IS that like, "Don't adjust your TV set."? Cause the big picture is out of your control?

[knightinwhitesatin]

79. Time will tell

n/t

[The Doctor.]

96. It already has;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4163664

[knightinwhitesatin]

99. A symptom is not a diagnosis

don't confuse me for a denier or a skeptic. More data can never be bad before we ultimately reorder our world for something that is probably true but not proven beyond a doubt.

[The Doctor.]

102. Oh, because I didn't spend an hour pulling together the THOUSANDS of examples,

then it's just 'one symptom'. Got it.

Please educate yourself. There is an overwhelming number of 'symptoms' that make the disease, cause, prognosis, and treatment crystal clear. I'd educate you, but I haven't the time today.

[knightinwhitesatin]

105. Calling me

stupid does not sway me to your cause. I consider myself a person with critical thinking skills, there is evidence for your argument, of that there is no doubt. Just not enough for me, we learn more everyday, some of it sways me more towards your argument, some of it like this little email brouhaha sway me away from it. But calling me stupid because I have my own opinion based on the facts as we know them only makes you look like a jackass.

[The Doctor.]

119. How typical. You're ignorant, not necessarily stupid. Do you know the difference?

One is a simple fact, the other is an insult.

You are not educated on the issue if you think the ice cap problem is the only symptom.

You would be 'stupid' if you deliberately ignored or discounted what you were told.

I never called you 'stupid', I'm merely leaving whether you're stupid up to you.

[knightinwhitesatin]

130. Aha so not agreeing with you

makes me what again?

[Quantess]

135. Uninformed.

[knightinwhitesatin]

151. Lovely

3 different ways I have been called dumb and uninformed in 3 days.

1. Not supporting the Obama surge into Afghanistan (I'm a soldier)
2. Wanting someone to actually honor their enlistment contract
3. Not willing to fall to my knees and prostrate myself before the Church of Climate Change

Can't wait to see who calls me dumb and uninformed tomorrow

[Quantess]

152. The "dumb" part is something you added, yourself.

Amazing how much insecurity and imagined criticism can be elicited from a single word, "uninformed", about a single topic, climate change.

It's amazing that people (not just you) get so emotional and histrionic over cold, objective, science.

[knightinwhitesatin]

153. If only the science were settled......

but that's just my dumb uninformed ass talking out of my mouth I guess ;)

[Quantess]

154. I take it back. The word I was looking for was "misinformed".

The science is settled. It's a myth that it's not.

And, once again, you are the only one here calling yourself "dumb". Insisting that other people called you dumb comes across as whiny.

Anyway, that's about all I'm going to add to this conversation. See you later.

[The Doctor.]

161. You have any idea how transparent you are?

"The Earth is an oblate spheriod"

"No it isn't!"

"You're ignorant."

"Oh, so just because I don't agree with you I'm ignorant?!"

Try reading the posts you respond to, then maybe your lack of cognition won't be so obvious.

It's not 'disagreeing with me' that makes you ignorant, it's your unwillingness to learn.


Why do you insist on bald idiocy? That tactic is so well-known around here.

[knightinwhitesatin]

177. So you're right

I'm wrong. I understand you don't want debate.

[The Doctor.]

198. That's what you're not getting... you're not 'debating' at all.

When one refuses to acknowledge facts, they cannot 'debate'. All they can do is live in a fantasy world where belief trumps reason.

You've demonstrated that quite well here.

Want to start over and see what happens? Go ahead and make a substantive point.

If you know anything about 'debate', then we'll both learn something.

[billh58]

141. Is being a

"denier" the same as being an "evildoer," or a "decider?" Wouldn't the better question be: "Who among us, or among our ancestors, has NOT contributed in some way to AGW, and what can we do about it at this late stage of the game?"

The "its-all-your-fault" camp is as ineffectual as the "nothing-to-see-here" camp if all that happens is name-calling and exchanging insults. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that six billion industrialized, fossil-fuel burning, exotic chemical manufacturing, self-centered, hungry people are fulfilling our evolutionary roles by shitting in our own nests. Our smaller-brained cousins don't do that very often. And, it's not just global warming -- it's the overall pollution of our planetary water, our soil, and our air.

Instead of laying guilt-trips on a those who piss you off, why not offer positive suggestions as to what individuals can realistically do to reverse the process? You may also want to take into account that natural, and relatively rapid, cyclical climate change has occurred many times in the past, and will occur again and again in the future, and there is little that mankind can do about it -- yet. The same goes for the shifting of the magnetic poles, and asteroid or comet strikes.

Your argument that climate change has never happened this rapidly without causing mass extinction in the history of this planet is a half-truth. What you should be saying is that natural occurrences like asteroid collisions are believed to have caused mass extinctions by raising the temperature of the earth several degrees over the span of a few days, or weeks. Not exactly apples-and-oranges, is it? We do not have much evidence for the effects on generations of mankind because of climate change over a period of several years.

Your point is well-taken, but just blaming those who either do not know what is causing climate change (which is the vast majority of Earth's general population), or those who don't give a rat's ass, will NOT get the job done. That is, unless your goal is to arrive at a "I told you so!" point just before we all become crispy critters.

The "us vs. them" tone of DU across many different topics would be almost comical if I weren't a Liberal Democrat. Since I AM a Liberal Democrat, I am more concerned with solutions than I am with pointing fingers, or affixing blame on fellow travelers.

[The Doctor.]

165. Your point is very well taken.

Frustration.

It's as though we travelers are on a bus headed toward a future where humanity can flourish and claim our destiny. To fail to arrive is extinction. Yet there are many on the bus who are siphoning off gas to turn a profit, draining the battery for entertainment, and just pulling parts and wires out for personal gain.
You say to them; we can't do that, we'll never make it to our destination.

They call you an 'alarmist'. The bus is still moving... so no problem.

You point to the gas guage, the battery indicator, you show them How the missing control-rod is going to cause the tire to fall off soon.

They say; "Well, none of those things make sense because the bus is still running."

You know it's all about to fall apart, but you can't get them to listen, let alone stop destroying our vehicle to the future. You know that once it stops running, our children will have to limp on toward that future, and they will curse our foolishness.

At the very least, you don't want to be counted among the idiots. At best, you want to get a few of them to think, "What if it's true?"

There are no subtle hints, kind words, or 'helpful suggestions' to make them stop. It's going to take laws and subsequent prosecutions of industry leaders to get it to stop. Unfortunately those industries have the ignorant masses in their thrall, so the laws will never pass.

Our descendents should know how these people were brainwashed so that it never happens again.

Other than that, the only thing we may have left is guilt.


And BTW; This rate of change has never occurred before without some catastophic event provoking it.

[Tejas]

39. ClimateOMFGChange was a nice trendy fad,

but it's over, get a real job.

Me, I intend to participate in any way possible with the explosion of industrialization of India China Madagascar et al. India by the way is ahead by leaps and bounds as their brokers have been buying metals in the past 3 years at rates never before seen. They have their sights set dead on manufacturing, not service industries like Micky D's or Home Depot.



Ashamed? Yes, of the bureaucracies created only to scam $$$ and the sheeple that go over the cliff at their beckoned call.

[Tutankhamun]

58. A "nice trendy fad" that's "over"?

You should tell that to the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists who now, more than ever, warn that global warming is a very real and imminent threat.

Science: "a nice trendy fad from yesteryear."

[Tejas]

127. "overwhelming majority of the world's scientists" - nice hyperbole there

[Quantess]

138. What's so hyperbolic about that? It's true.

[Tejas]

193. 4*C rise will wipe out BILLIONS

um, yeah, got your memo, used it to line the cat box.

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp





You may now return to your normal re-programming.

[LWolf]

41. I honestly don't understand

why people post rants like this at DU. It's a nice rant, but it seems to be directed to the wrong people.

Are you thinking that there are a bunch of DUers that deny climate change?

Who, exactly, is your audience? :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

60. Plenty of them;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4163175

The 'rant' is directed specifically and explicitly at deniers.

That so many are taking offense to it is quite revealing.

[Flaneur]

110. Good lord, just read this thread! Denial isn't just a river in Fresno.

[obliviously]

47. I wish this was on paper. I could line a catbox with it!

[The Doctor.]

55. Wow... your mindlessness is impressive. User-name well-chosen!

Or is there something specific about the OP you disagree with?

[Tutankhamun]

70. Your OP is spot on. To say that the overwhelmng majority of scientists are wrong,

and you know better is nonsense. Global warming is a scary thing. Denial is a way to insulate oneself from that fear. Doctor, I look forward to your other posts in the future.

[The Doctor.]

72. Thanks.

Isn't it something to see how many care more about attitude than substance?

We're in a lot of trouble as a race. Some day the behaviors of these corporations will be punishable by death. Sadly, that won't happen until it's obvious they've contributed to the devastation and death to come.

That hindsight is 20/20 will bring great changes... however untimely.

[NaturalHigh]

200. I wouldn't want to subject my cat to it.

My cat is very intelligent and sensitive. She would slap her head in frustration if she read the OP.

[Odin2005]

75. +1,000,000,000,000

[NoPasaran]

76. If I had grandchildren, I'd tell them salmon tasted okay, nothing great

Unrecced for holier-than-thou bullshit.

[cali]

77. lol. best response of the miserable thread.

[The Doctor.]

85. Yeah, all those climate change pushers and their 'holier-than-thou' attitudes!

You're exactly right!

Just because someone doesn't want to believe something doesn't mean that people who know and understand the issue should act like they know and try to tell others what they should believe!

It's a free country! I can believe the Earth is flat and no 'holier-than-thou' scientists should tell me what to think!

BTW, in case you didn't know; 'Holier-than-thou' is freeperspeak for people who voice their concern about AGW.

All your response tells me is that you believe one or all of three things;

1) That AGW is either not a problem or not our responsibility.

2) That deniers are not a problem and needn't be ashamed.

3) That I'm out of place to suggest they should be.

Which is it?

You indignation-mongers are so fucking transparent.

[NoPasaran]

88. This thread is obvious flamebait

I wonder what its carbon footprint is.

[The Doctor.]

91. Funny... the only ones it targeted are AGW *deniers*.

Please do explain how that makes it 'flamebait'.

[cali]

89. I'm finding your high dudgeon most amusing.

entertainment for a cold and dreary day.

[The Doctor.]

94. Ummm.... really?

My apologies, oh superior one!

:rofl:

[Synicus Maximus]

106. Serious question. What is the optimum temperature for the earth?

Warmer than it is now. It has been much warmer in the past as it has been much colder.Should the temps be what they were in the 1950s? The 1850s. 1150? 5050BCE?

I would really like to know.

[Prometheuspan]

114. the optimium temperature of the earth

is the temperature natural forces found homeostasis at before we polluted.

[The Doctor.]

122. I think you mean 'optimal' for human-friendly climate.

For Earth, Optimum may be 300° c. Nothing would be alive, of course.

For us, we need something in the 13.5°c range. We're approaching 15°c now... that's not good.

[varelse]

108. I have no children

and very little power. Try the question out on those a lot further up the food chain than anyone posting on DU. I doubt you'll get even the courtesy of a reply, though - they are probably very busy making sure that they and their kids and grandkids will be sheltered and protected.

[Lorien]

113. They won't be sheltered and protected though

no one will.

[varelse]

120. In the short term, they will be shielded

Certainly they will be far better off than most of the rest of the living beings on this planet. I have no idea why these people believe their power and money will protect their dynasties forever, though. They are certainly acting as if in the thrall of such a delusion. Could the super-rich overlords of our human world actually know something they aren't sharing with the rest of us, or are they just as easily self-deluded as we all are?

[Tejas]

128. the chicken littles don't care

They could care less if you had 50 grandchildren, the climate alarmists want your money for the here and now.

[varelse]

132. Barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm ever llikely to land in the denial camp

I've been concerned about this since long before Al Gore's famous, bestselling book was published.

[The Doctor.]

170. So what are you going to tell your grandchildren?

You do not now realize that your certainty is a direct result of your ignorance.

You know you don't understand the science, yet you have somehow convinced yourself it's not happening.

I don't know how old you are now, but if you live another 50 years (or less), you're going to be looking into the eyes of children that learned the science you never understood.

"And AFTER you read a post on the internet so many years ago about what you would tell your grand-children and quietly, smugly, and to yourself thought, "Well, it's not going to happen, so I don't care." because denial is all you have right now..."

What are you going to tell them?

[Blue_Tires]

109. ttt

[Lorien]

112. I wanted kids but didn't have them because my best friend's father is a

climate scientist who has worked in Antarctica for over 45 years. What I overheard him talking about with his colleagues when I was a kid made me decide that having children would be the most selfish thing I could do. How could I bear knowing what kind of world they would be forced to live in before they even made it to middle age? I fight for the environment every day, in every way I can, but so few on the Left-or anywhere in America-seem to care. It's terrifying that my friend's father's predictions are coming true so much sooner than he thought they would. Most of us will be profoundly effected by climate change in our lifetimes. Had we acted when Carter wanted us to we would have had much more time.

[anonymous171]

117. Climate Change is real but your predictions are stupid. nt

[The Doctor.]

123. They are not 'my' predictions. They are simple projections based on current trends.

Or, hey... I've got an idea! You could actually explain how they are stupid.

Yeah... like I'm gonna hold my breath.

[anonymous171]

124. OK, explain how mass famines in the first world are going to become commonplace?

[The Doctor.]

125. Right... screw the balance of humanity. We got ours, right?

Not necessarily. You think we'll still be a 'first world nation' after the shit hits the fan?

We won't necessarily have 'mass famines', but food will not be nearly as abundant... which is why I didn't say 'mass famines'... you did.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/worst-effects-global-warming.htm

[depakid]

159. If anything, your predictions are understated

based on the present inability of the nations of the world to act responsibly on the issue as happened with the Montreal Protocols (ozone depletion).

[The Doctor.]

162. The REALLY frightening part;

Is just how much we cannot predict.

With all the energy we've added to the climate system, there could be a slew of effects of effects. We simply cannot prepare for everything.

After the next hundred years passes, whatever civilization is left is going to be very different.

One of the changes I hope to see is that science, not ignorance or profits, becomes the authority. I really hope it becomes illegal for the uninformed, ignorant, and myopic to have any influence on society's workings.

[Prometheuspan]

118. the solution to the problem being...

1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.

[Uncle Joe]

129. I don't believe some denialists will be ashamed for two reasons.

The first group are being programmed to think of human caused global warming climate change catastrophe as the prophesied end times, they will view it all as Armageddon or Tribulation up until the day they die.

The second group aren't true denialists, they just pretend to be on the surface, in fact they know what's happening. They're cold-blooded, cynical opportunists; the mega wealthy and powerful willing to gamble all due to having the dual beliefs; that they will survive because of their wealth, power or connections while also believing that humanity needs culling.

I believe the second group plays on the first group's faith or ignorance depending on your point of view, and that both groups are in tremendous and tragic error


Thanks for the thread, The Doctor.:thumbsup:

[Iggo]

134. Nope.

[WilliamPitt]

148. I forget what I was going to say

[JVS]

149. No.

[Kaleva]

156. I'm not in denial. I just think it's too late to reverse the changes.

We ought to concentrate more on adapting to the effects of climate change.

[omega minimo]

190. Wouldn't that include changing the behaviors that exacerbate Climate Change?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

157. this post is upsetting for NON deniers too

I have no kids, so that is the first and biggest kindness to the planet. (The less people, the less carbon footprint)

We are very careful to do what we can, recycle everything possible, switch all lights to energy-savers, turn off lights religiously, keep the heat down or, for example as soon as my car outlived its warranty, I changed it to a grease-car (runs on used veg. oil --sadly, I had it done by a mechanic who didn't know what he was doing.. had to have the whole thing removed after 2 years)....

I try to explain what I can about this or other issues, when the opportunity arises, and if I can say something part-way intelligent, to try to raise awareness....

Living as a human on this planet, in the US, in an age of plastic and consumerism -- there are limits to what one can do (car issue as example)....

So, to be slapped in the face with the same hand aimed at arrogant, ignorant freepers, as if I could have done something more, as if these heartbreaking consequences could have been avoided if only I hadn't...what? Existed?


(I do see farther downthread that you're addressing yourself to freepers, but posting it here as an open letter to DU makes it feel as if it's addressed to us too.)

[The Doctor.]

167. Can you imagine if everyone did as you do?

How could you possibly include yourself here?

You should be proud. Have neices or nephews? If you do, it will be their children that will talk about how great aunt Blanche was wa ahead of the world, and they will lament that so many did not follow your example.

YOU will be the ones future generations will be proud of.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

192. no, no family whatsoever....

just my hunny's family.

That's ok though, I don't do it for the kudos, I do it because it's the right way for me.

As I said, the OP was a broad censure seemingly addressed to all on DU.
And as a human being living in an industrialized, consumer nation, there's no way I can avoid negatively impacting the planet, so therefore, I too am partially responsible for the scorched earth scenario you envision.

[Duppers]

160. good job, doc

I see my ignore list has come out for this one too. ;)
They're an ignorant bunch of anti-science people.

[The Doctor.]

166. Seriously...

It's like watching a fly-zapper.

[derby378]

168. Since I'm not a climate-change denier...

...the only thing I'll have to be ashamed about is that I didn't do enough to stop it. No one person can, though. The only way we can restore balance to the world is if we do it together.

[crazyjoe]

171. so agree with me or your stupid, is that about right?

was waterworld a documentary in your "scientifically literate" mind ?

[The Doctor.]

178. No, that's ignorant.

It's also a transparent strawman.

If you can't agree with me that the Earth Revolves around the Sun, then yes, you are ignorant... if you don't listen to the facts, then you're stupid too.

[G_j]

180. if the cap fits..

[Blue-Jay]

175. "Don't forget this post. Ever."

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

181. *Ever*!!

[JNelson6563]

176. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can deny it.

It's a mystery to me.

Julie

[Zhade]

184. They better fucking be.

NT!

[Throd]

189. Or maybe, as we fish for salmon, I will tell them of the flappy armed death cultists of yesteryear.

[REP]

191. No. Because I don't have children.

That one act alone - not reproducing - has done more for the environment than just about any other indvidual action.

[R. P. McMurphy]

195. k & r n/t

[NaturalHigh]

199. I do not believe that human activity is causing climate change.

I'll just say that (without shame) before I forget this OP.

[Zavulon]

201. Blah, blah, blah.

I don't do my best to stop it. I use my A/C 24/7 in the summer, I leave lights on all night, I don't recycle. Every other year since the 70's I've been hearing dire predictions like yours. For each scientist you can find who makes them, I can find an equally educated / qualified scientist that can refute them. Your claims of "being scientifically literate" and implications that those who don't buy into your screaming hysteria are "simply scientifically illiterate" are always followed by proposals for tax increases which aren't tax increases, and made by people like Al Gore and John Edwards who have larger carbon footprints between the two of them then half of DU.

I won't have grandchildren, either, but in response to your question, I'd probably say to them "That's what they taught you in school today? Yeah, they've been making those same dire predictions since before I was born. I remember back in '09 reading some hysterical post about how we'd all be ashamed, and it still makes me laugh, I wish I had saved it. Turn up the A/C, kids, I'd like it a bit cooler in here. Oh, and leave the lights on so that people will think we're up when we're asleep."

Or, on the off chance your doom-and-gloom scenario ever became true, I'd say "We were led by idiots who think you can burn as much energy as you want as long as you buy carbon credits from some firm that one of them was on the board of, and we were led by a Congress who thought taxing the shit out of people in the worst economy since the twenties is perfectly okay as long as we called it something other than a tax, and those arrogant idiots made failed attempt after failed attempt to change the climate through expensive legislation that was more designed as a money grab than it was towards a cleaner environment. Worst still, we were led by idiots who thought it was okay to exempt India and China as 'developing countries' even though they were both nuclear powers and had half the world's population between themselves, but decided to level 'taxes which weren't taxes' on Americans who couldn't afford it if they were going to fill their ugly little shitbox Priuses with fuel, too."

By the way, in your shining example if alarmist arrogance, you wrote "Many of you denialists are simply scientifically illiterate." Which ones aren't?

[NaturalHigh]

202. "I don't do my best to stop it."

"I use my A/C 24/7 in the summer, I leave lights on all night, I don't recycle."

Wow, we could almost be brothers. Except for the light thing - I like it as dark as I can get it when I sleep.

As for the air conditioner, I'd be willing to bet that mine runs more than yours. I hate summer and the heat, and I'm not about to be hot in my own house just because a few nutjobs try to convince me that I'm destroying the planet by not sweating myself to death.

[Zavulon]

205. You're on, friend.

You wrote: "As for the air conditioner, I'd be willing to bet that mine runs more than yours." I don't doubt that you may be right, but I'll say this - if you EVER turn off the A/C in the summer, even for five minutes, I've got you beat ;)

[Tejas]

204. This just in: India STILL doesn't care.

China is running a close second.




Told ya so.



:rofl: