Menu Bar
Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog schools four Republicans on global warming.
Aug 27, 2008 5:22 AM
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
global warming is a lie and scam perpetrated to try and trick you into letting them tax you to breathe. Look into the 50000+ scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming.
By: jellis4
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
No it's true. There's a plan in the works for the U.N.'s new World Taxation Cabal to install breath-o-meters on every nostril (mouth-breathers get an exemption). Science is a conspiracy to install one world government, and use jackbooted storm troopers to force us all to stop digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. They won't rest until they've destroyed the last coal-fired Hummel figurine factory.
But there are thousands of scientists who are independent of the conspiracy, and who have the courage to dispute one or another detail of this global warming scam. Our real threat is not the changing chemistry of our planet. The only true threat is roving gangs of crazy guys with a bombs.
Look it up in the John Birch Society newsletter.
But there are thousands of scientists who are independent of the conspiracy, and who have the courage to dispute one or another detail of this global warming scam. Our real threat is not the changing chemistry of our planet. The only true threat is roving gangs of crazy guys with a bombs.
Look it up in the John Birch Society newsletter.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Research Anthropogenic Global Warming.
By: ejayerik
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
50,000. i think you are a bit misinformed. there are 3 major principals involved, and all you have to do is disagree with any one of those to be on that list. and bottom line is this... we can live without a healthy economy, we can not live with out healthy ecology. and im sorry, but i dont like you betting our future, to fulfill whatever materialistic desires you have.
By: chimmeychango
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Jellis, where on earth do you get that miraculously round number from anyway?
What IS remarkable about global warming science is how much in consensus the science community is on the issue - they all agree *something* is happening, and we are the root cause - the only thing they DO differ on is the severity of the change and its outcomes.
If you want a conspiracy theory about 'the man' keeping you down, go check out how the world economy works...
What IS remarkable about global warming science is how much in consensus the science community is on the issue - they all agree *something* is happening, and we are the root cause - the only thing they DO differ on is the severity of the change and its outcomes.
If you want a conspiracy theory about 'the man' keeping you down, go check out how the world economy works...
By: tycho100
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
47.836% of all statistics used in debate are made up on the spot.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Will those of you arguing with what Jellis says please explain to me how an SUV on Earth is causing the ice caps on Mars to melt???.... Or how my breathing out Carbon Dioxide is warming up the surface temperature on all the moons surrounding Saturn???... OR how my heating of my house causes the temperature on the side of Mercury facing the sun is on average 25º warmer than it was 40 years ago????
Let me guess, you can't! It's proven science that the SUN is warming up not only Earth but ALL THE OTHER PLANETS AND MOONS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
Instead of picking sides and bickering like little kids, we except this time in our history for what it is... the heating up of our star closes to us... the same heating that's allowing our crops to grow bigger and stronger than ever before!
Wake up people, those in charge who give you this bogus information about how it's YOUR FAULT it's all warming up are there to control you and to fool you into thinking that you NEED TO PAY more taxes to breath or to drive or to heat your house!
It's just more ways to control you, and you mind-numb zombies eat it up like cake!
Let me guess, you can't! It's proven science that the SUN is warming up not only Earth but ALL THE OTHER PLANETS AND MOONS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
Instead of picking sides and bickering like little kids, we except this time in our history for what it is... the heating up of our star closes to us... the same heating that's allowing our crops to grow bigger and stronger than ever before!
Wake up people, those in charge who give you this bogus information about how it's YOUR FAULT it's all warming up are there to control you and to fool you into thinking that you NEED TO PAY more taxes to breath or to drive or to heat your house!
It's just more ways to control you, and you mind-numb zombies eat it up like cake!
By: chawx
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
The following is i8ursandwich's 7 step plan for making yourself look a little less ignorant.
1) Proofread your post, or at least spellcheck. Please.
2) Research global warming. Realize that the ice caps on Mars, the moons on Saturn, and Mercury have nothing to do with global warming.
3) Acknowledge that the ice caps on Mars can melt, and the surface of the moons of Saturn and the surface of Mercury can all heat up, regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by humans.
4) If you insist on making stupid claims to the contrary, fine- at least check your facts. The surface temperature of Mercury ranges between 100 K and 700 K. Greater variation in temperature than that on Earth is to be expected, due to its proximity to the sun. 25 degrees is not shocking. Besides, I would be surprised if scientists in 1968 had measurements of the temperature on Mercury that had lower than a 25 degree margin of error.
5) Look into agriculture. Crops are growing "bigger and stronger" because of advancements in science and farming techniques. Duh.
6) Nobody is charging you to breathe.
7) Apologize for making an inflammatory comment on a subject you clearly don't understand.
Granted, this is a 7 step program that only a very specific demographic can appreciate, but I still think you'll find it useful. That'll be $99.99.
1) Proofread your post, or at least spellcheck. Please.
2) Research global warming. Realize that the ice caps on Mars, the moons on Saturn, and Mercury have nothing to do with global warming.
3) Acknowledge that the ice caps on Mars can melt, and the surface of the moons of Saturn and the surface of Mercury can all heat up, regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by humans.
4) If you insist on making stupid claims to the contrary, fine- at least check your facts. The surface temperature of Mercury ranges between 100 K and 700 K. Greater variation in temperature than that on Earth is to be expected, due to its proximity to the sun. 25 degrees is not shocking. Besides, I would be surprised if scientists in 1968 had measurements of the temperature on Mercury that had lower than a 25 degree margin of error.
5) Look into agriculture. Crops are growing "bigger and stronger" because of advancements in science and farming techniques. Duh.
6) Nobody is charging you to breathe.
7) Apologize for making an inflammatory comment on a subject you clearly don't understand.
Granted, this is a 7 step program that only a very specific demographic can appreciate, but I still think you'll find it useful. That'll be $99.99.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Le sigh. Grammatical errors. I'm cutting myself a big slice of humble pie.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
No need to split your own hairs. Only a real twat would try to bust ya over a few imperfections (despite the minor irony). There's far too much good content in the writing to focus on.
Besides, commenting ain't a paid gig. So if the reader wants perfection, they can bloody well cough up for editors.
Don't have to do yer best, just make a decent effort. Try to make it clean enough, I say. (Which, ya certainly do)
Besides, commenting ain't a paid gig. So if the reader wants perfection, they can bloody well cough up for editors.
Don't have to do yer best, just make a decent effort. Try to make it clean enough, I say. (Which, ya certainly do)
By: EViLMinD
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Fascinating, Chawx. Apparently we can't prove our own planet is warming, but we can prove all the other planets are warming?
While it is true that the sun has been warming since it first began to shine, the rate of warming is about one hundred-millionth of a percent per year. At that rate it takes 35,000,000 years for the Earth's global mean temperature to rise by one degree celsius. But actually the Earth's temperature has been falling over the past few million years, since biological processes have been sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere, which we've been burning back into the atmosphere over the past couple of hundred years.
Maybe this video will help clear up some of the extraterrestrial warming claims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI
While it is true that the sun has been warming since it first began to shine, the rate of warming is about one hundred-millionth of a percent per year. At that rate it takes 35,000,000 years for the Earth's global mean temperature to rise by one degree celsius. But actually the Earth's temperature has been falling over the past few million years, since biological processes have been sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere, which we've been burning back into the atmosphere over the past couple of hundred years.
Maybe this video will help clear up some of the extraterrestrial warming claims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Being a scientist doesn't make you an authority on global warming. Being a climatologist makes you an authority on global warming.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I always wonder why people even respond to crazy cranks. It's arguing with a fool.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Your argument would be more convincing if you could name these scientists and their credentials.
By: Gammellon
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Arguments against global warming are typically made redundant when you see whose funding them. A anti-global warming lobby group recently got in trouble in the U.K., when it was revealed all of it's funding was coming from a large fossil fuel company.
By: Shiver
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Whether global warming is true or not isn't really that important, as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at things logically. Nearly all the world's major metropolitan cities are more polluted and create their own climates. Meanwhile, the world's population is growing at a higher rate than ever. That means there are more people leaving a footprint.
Most of the sources that people attribute to global warming cause these metropolitan areas to be warmer and more polluted. Even if you don't want to accept that we are changing the world's climate, you should accept that fossil fuels create smog and other problems which are harmful to our health. They are also limited as a resource, so basic economics tells us that we need to move on to a new source, and one that doesn't have harmful effects on the citizenry.
Most of the sources that people attribute to global warming cause these metropolitan areas to be warmer and more polluted. Even if you don't want to accept that we are changing the world's climate, you should accept that fossil fuels create smog and other problems which are harmful to our health. They are also limited as a resource, so basic economics tells us that we need to move on to a new source, and one that doesn't have harmful effects on the citizenry.
By: the_monk
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I just find it interesting that usually, the same subset of people who vehemently deny that global warming exists (or that if is does exist, is being primarily augmented by man) are the same ones trying to cram a religion down my throat.
By: Jaguarjp
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I did some research into global warming, and this is what seems is happening. Correct me if I am wrong.
While it may be a bit cooler one year and a bit warmer the next, the overall trend is that the planet is going through a warming period caused by a number of factors. Some of these factors are natural, such as sunspots. However, these natural factors alone cannot account for all of the warming occurring. That is why scientists believe CO2 and other man made green house gases are causing global warming.
While it may be a bit cooler one year and a bit warmer the next, the overall trend is that the planet is going through a warming period caused by a number of factors. Some of these factors are natural, such as sunspots. However, these natural factors alone cannot account for all of the warming occurring. That is why scientists believe CO2 and other man made green house gases are causing global warming.
By: chronomitch
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Just a quick note:
I'm very conscientious when it comes to the environment. I buy organic food only (or at the very least 99% organic), I get around on foot and bike (evading cars and buses whenever possible), even feel as if my day is ruined if I accidentally kill a little bug, my work involves protecting plants and animals, and there are other ways I do my best to live in harmony with other living (and non-living) things, such as by gardening ecologically. That said, I'm not one who buys into the man-made global warming by way of carbon emissions. It's a scam designed by certain people to gain control. The science isn't there, or, to be precise, I haven't seen it.
Here's what matters: cutting vast swathes of (rain)forest isn't exactly beneficial to a healthy planet; pumping all sorts of filthy gases and I don't know what colorful carcinogenic particles into the atmosphere, likewise, does no good at all; polluting the rivers and oceans also gets a ghastly look from me; using pesticides I loathe; and hunting animals to the brink of extinction -- and beyond -- is another obnoxious thing. I could go on.
Here's to hoping a lot more people grow up, or is that too demanding of me?
I'm very conscientious when it comes to the environment. I buy organic food only (or at the very least 99% organic), I get around on foot and bike (evading cars and buses whenever possible), even feel as if my day is ruined if I accidentally kill a little bug, my work involves protecting plants and animals, and there are other ways I do my best to live in harmony with other living (and non-living) things, such as by gardening ecologically. That said, I'm not one who buys into the man-made global warming by way of carbon emissions. It's a scam designed by certain people to gain control. The science isn't there, or, to be precise, I haven't seen it.
Here's what matters: cutting vast swathes of (rain)forest isn't exactly beneficial to a healthy planet; pumping all sorts of filthy gases and I don't know what colorful carcinogenic particles into the atmosphere, likewise, does no good at all; polluting the rivers and oceans also gets a ghastly look from me; using pesticides I loathe; and hunting animals to the brink of extinction -- and beyond -- is another obnoxious thing. I could go on.
Here's to hoping a lot more people grow up, or is that too demanding of me?
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Wolfie, you seem to be serious about climate science being a tool for social control. You also seem to be serious when you say you don't believe it's principally caused by atmospheric carbon emissions.
How did you arrive at this position?
How did you arrive at this position?
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Well, for one thing I live way up north in the Arctic and last winter I had an awful time digging up my storaged moose and caribou chops. I can't remember having had to dig so hard and so long in my life before. There were also weeks on end when, icy storms howling outside, I slept with more than a dozen Inuit girls at the same time (all in one big igloo), which is quite a bit above average (I'm talking about the size of those orgies), but no complaints there. I even included a couple of them who talked about nothing but fish, and no, I don't mean literary discussions about Moby Dick, which would have been mighty interesting.
What more can I say? A lot, I think; but would that be wise? You're smart enough to find your own way.
A few tidbits:
I don't mind humans using fossil fuels all that much. Problems arise when the air I breathe gets fouled up with deadly chemicals. Carbon I don't mind, for reasons obvious to most. We should just plant lots of trees and build us millions of cozy log cabins in the woods.
*squints*
Do you see what I see? Up there in the sky? The big light? It is one of many trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions (and many more) in the universe. Remembering that, it becomes even easier to howl with laughter at some bloated Clinton lapdog who pushes his drivel about global warming (and carbon taxes) while he cranks up an electric bill easily twenty times higher than yours or mine.
Why not read what the UN is writing? Why not investigate those people who advocate stringent measures to curb CO2 emissions? You'll find out they're all the same, basically. Liars, opportunists, collectivists (certainly that), and just plain corrupt idiots.
Naturally, most of those who find themselves on the so-called 'right' are corrupt, lying, collectivist idiots as well (and I forgot opportunistic), but you'll easily learn to ignore them. I take it you already do.
Now it gets easier. Your vision unclouded by propaganda, it's easy to detect what information is trustworthy and which is not. You'll see that indeed global temperatures have risen -- and fallen, and risen, and fallen. What are they doing now? Falling? Are the oceans cooling? It's awfully quiet in the collectivist camp. They keep hoping for the next hurricane, I guess. Yes, that'll be it.
No hard feelings.
What more can I say? A lot, I think; but would that be wise? You're smart enough to find your own way.
A few tidbits:
I don't mind humans using fossil fuels all that much. Problems arise when the air I breathe gets fouled up with deadly chemicals. Carbon I don't mind, for reasons obvious to most. We should just plant lots of trees and build us millions of cozy log cabins in the woods.
*squints*
Do you see what I see? Up there in the sky? The big light? It is one of many trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions (and many more) in the universe. Remembering that, it becomes even easier to howl with laughter at some bloated Clinton lapdog who pushes his drivel about global warming (and carbon taxes) while he cranks up an electric bill easily twenty times higher than yours or mine.
Why not read what the UN is writing? Why not investigate those people who advocate stringent measures to curb CO2 emissions? You'll find out they're all the same, basically. Liars, opportunists, collectivists (certainly that), and just plain corrupt idiots.
Naturally, most of those who find themselves on the so-called 'right' are corrupt, lying, collectivist idiots as well (and I forgot opportunistic), but you'll easily learn to ignore them. I take it you already do.
Now it gets easier. Your vision unclouded by propaganda, it's easy to detect what information is trustworthy and which is not. You'll see that indeed global temperatures have risen -- and fallen, and risen, and fallen. What are they doing now? Falling? Are the oceans cooling? It's awfully quiet in the collectivist camp. They keep hoping for the next hurricane, I guess. Yes, that'll be it.
No hard feelings.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
"Why not read what the UN is writing?"
That's actually a really good starting place <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm>, it's actually one of the more optimistic reports out there. Although with any long-cast predictions it's difficult to take into account the full effect of feedback loops.
That's actually a really good starting place <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm>, it's actually one of the more optimistic reports out there. Although with any long-cast predictions it's difficult to take into account the full effect of feedback loops.
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Here's a nice visualization that aggregates local temperature data over the past century into a geographic visualization over time:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/208483main_TemperatureDifferenceDates_ipod.mpg
It's from those hacks over there at the Goddard Institute. Blue means cooler, red means warmer than the mean temperature over the 120 year span for each location. As you can see there's almost nowhere that's warmer than average in the early century, or cooler than average in the late century.
For a handy line graph showing global mean temperature over the century, check out the writeup here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html
This stuff looks pretty trustworthy to me. I can see you're right WW, the global mean temperature has risen and fallen and risen. After all, half the little black squares are below the red line, and only half of the little black squares are above. The Y axis means "difference between global mean temperature for X year against average GMT 1950-1980.
Over there in the great white north you get the most relative temperature rise, as the reflective ice becomes liquid ocean and absorbs nearly 100% of the solar energy. That's one of those feedbacks loops. It's caused a 4c rise over the century up north.
But I agree about toxic chemicals. They're yucky too.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/208483main_TemperatureDifferenceDates_ipod.mpg
It's from those hacks over there at the Goddard Institute. Blue means cooler, red means warmer than the mean temperature over the 120 year span for each location. As you can see there's almost nowhere that's warmer than average in the early century, or cooler than average in the late century.
For a handy line graph showing global mean temperature over the century, check out the writeup here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html
This stuff looks pretty trustworthy to me. I can see you're right WW, the global mean temperature has risen and fallen and risen. After all, half the little black squares are below the red line, and only half of the little black squares are above. The Y axis means "difference between global mean temperature for X year against average GMT 1950-1980.
Over there in the great white north you get the most relative temperature rise, as the reflective ice becomes liquid ocean and absorbs nearly 100% of the solar energy. That's one of those feedbacks loops. It's caused a 4c rise over the century up north.
But I agree about toxic chemicals. They're yucky too.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
If it's all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere that's causing global warming, why don't we have population control ? I mean we're all breathing it out, and the earth's population is ever growing.
More people = More breathing out = More CO2 in atmosphere = More global warming
Also what ever happened to global dimming ? Wasn't there something about that too ?
More people = More breathing out = More CO2 in atmosphere = More global warming
Also what ever happened to global dimming ? Wasn't there something about that too ?
By: D3NIS
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Breathing is nowhere near the scale that is being talked about, cow belches definitely (methane is a much more powerful green house gas) but not breathing by at least a factor of magnitude.
When you're talking about the global scale little things can have large impacts. If you were to turn up the heat by a fraction of a degree, you would melt more ice, which would uncover rock/ice, which would absorb more energy from the sun than ice (most of the light gets reflected away), which makes the world hotter, which makes more ice melt,... This is also why it's so difficult to make models of the distant future, but that's why there are thousands of people working on the problem and a lot of super computers assigned to the task.
The sun does go through a cycle of activity; however that doesn't account for amount of warming we're seeing and doesn't account for the type of warming that is being seen. I'd recommend this guy’s videos (thanks loqi): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page
But then again I'm just a mechanical engineer so I'm a bit out of my element. Give me a power plant or fuel cell question and I'd be a lot happier.
When you're talking about the global scale little things can have large impacts. If you were to turn up the heat by a fraction of a degree, you would melt more ice, which would uncover rock/ice, which would absorb more energy from the sun than ice (most of the light gets reflected away), which makes the world hotter, which makes more ice melt,... This is also why it's so difficult to make models of the distant future, but that's why there are thousands of people working on the problem and a lot of super computers assigned to the task.
The sun does go through a cycle of activity; however that doesn't account for amount of warming we're seeing and doesn't account for the type of warming that is being seen. I'd recommend this guy’s videos (thanks loqi): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page
But then again I'm just a mechanical engineer so I'm a bit out of my element. Give me a power plant or fuel cell question and I'd be a lot happier.
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Population is a problem, but not for the reason you think. Respiration is carbon neutral. All of the CO2 that we exhale is a by-product of our bodies breaking down the food we eat, which comes (ultimately) from plant life. When we exhale, we are merely replacing atmospheric CO2 that was recently taken out via photosynthesis. So, it all evens out, and does not raise the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
The problem is fossil fuels -- vast reserves of carbon that have been underground for millions of years, only to be released by human activity. Respiration has nothing to do with this, except in the indirect sense that we burn fossil fuels in order to plow our fields, harvest our crops, process our food, and ship it around the world so that it can be eaten and the CO2 exhaled. But again, it is the fossil fuels that are the problem, not respiration per se.
The problem is fossil fuels -- vast reserves of carbon that have been underground for millions of years, only to be released by human activity. Respiration has nothing to do with this, except in the indirect sense that we burn fossil fuels in order to plow our fields, harvest our crops, process our food, and ship it around the world so that it can be eaten and the CO2 exhaled. But again, it is the fossil fuels that are the problem, not respiration per se.
By: quisph
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
As for global dimming, it reversed itself around 1990, when aerosol levels in the atmosphere started to drop. So we are currently in a brightening trend, which exacerbates global warming. Some have even proposed deliberately adding aerosols back into the atmosphere in order to counteract the effects of global warming, although this would have undesirable side effects.
By: quisph
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
We do have population control, Denis. It's called physical reality. It'd be nice if we could manage to get our population under somewhat democratic human control before it's taken care of for us by other means, but that's just my opinion.
This "exhalation contributes to global warming" line would be satirically funny if people (other than Quisph) weren't so scientifically illiterate. As it is, it's just tragically effective. [See "carbon cycle" for a primer.]
Do you think there are little faeries in our lungs with CO2 production workshops where they lovingly hand-craft each carbon atom out of six hydrogen atoms? Or do the faeries forego nuclear fusion in favor of chemistry, grabbing materials from the handy stream of carbon atoms we're shoving into our cakeholes each day? If we're going to tax ourselves for our metabolic carbon emissions, we'll need to give ourselves tax deductions for carbon ingestion, and guess what, they're exactly equal. Once again, after my accountant's hefty fee, my biological carbon tax comes out to exactly zero this year too.
But on the other hand, the fossil fuels we're burning are derived from organisms of the distant past, who've been geologically interred, taking the carbon of their bodies with them. In other words, we've had global cooling for about a billion years, which has been largely reversed over the past hundred years.
This "exhalation contributes to global warming" line would be satirically funny if people (other than Quisph) weren't so scientifically illiterate. As it is, it's just tragically effective. [See "carbon cycle" for a primer.]
Do you think there are little faeries in our lungs with CO2 production workshops where they lovingly hand-craft each carbon atom out of six hydrogen atoms? Or do the faeries forego nuclear fusion in favor of chemistry, grabbing materials from the handy stream of carbon atoms we're shoving into our cakeholes each day? If we're going to tax ourselves for our metabolic carbon emissions, we'll need to give ourselves tax deductions for carbon ingestion, and guess what, they're exactly equal. Once again, after my accountant's hefty fee, my biological carbon tax comes out to exactly zero this year too.
But on the other hand, the fossil fuels we're burning are derived from organisms of the distant past, who've been geologically interred, taking the carbon of their bodies with them. In other words, we've had global cooling for about a billion years, which has been largely reversed over the past hundred years.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I was skimming through the comments above and stopped in my tracks at reading the following: "It'd be nice if we could manage to get our population under somewhat democratic human control before it's taken care of for us by other means, but that's just my opinion."
Couched in velvet, your thought casts long shadows. Be very careful what you wish for, Loqi.
Couched in velvet, your thought casts long shadows. Be very careful what you wish for, Loqi.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I know it's a taboo political topic to talk about interfering with others' ability to make as many kids as they please. It's so much easier to just avoid the topic. What we really need is trustworthy political systems that allow aggregate opinion to wrestle with such tough topics as human population, resource allocation, environmental stewardship, or the like. I'm not naive enough to consider our current ways of implementing democracy to be anything resembling velvet.
But scary images of fascist eugenics aside, the other half of the choice is that if we take the politically safe course and continue with our current ways, we can expect to eventually arrive where we're headed. There's no getting around the impossible physics of infinite growth on a finite planet.
But scary images of fascist eugenics aside, the other half of the choice is that if we take the politically safe course and continue with our current ways, we can expect to eventually arrive where we're headed. There's no getting around the impossible physics of infinite growth on a finite planet.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I think child birth rate is one of those things that's hard wired into everyone and if you understand it you can help guild it. I in no way understand all the variables but generally you can lower the population growth rate by: improving child mortality rates, improving health care, and improving the quality of living.
Population rates by country:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/pg/1a.html
If you look at Germany they have a 0 population growth rate (the population isn't growing and isn't shrinking) and is ranked 177 (rank is from most to least) in child mortality rates. If you look at the US, we have a .92 population growth rate and are ranked 158 in child mortality rate. Now this is an incredible over simplification and I'm cherry picking, but the two figures are significantly linked.
So how do you begin to solve a future overpopulation problem, start by investing in health care and provide that health care to everyone even if they can't afford it. While it may cost you more in the short term the long term benefits (at least in my opinion) out way that cost. I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to make your money back because the GDP will grow quicker.
If you have 20 minutes to kill this is a really good TEDtalk on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI
This is the website he talks about near the end of the video: http://www.gapminder.org/
Population rates by country:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/pg/1a.html
If you look at Germany they have a 0 population growth rate (the population isn't growing and isn't shrinking) and is ranked 177 (rank is from most to least) in child mortality rates. If you look at the US, we have a .92 population growth rate and are ranked 158 in child mortality rate. Now this is an incredible over simplification and I'm cherry picking, but the two figures are significantly linked.
So how do you begin to solve a future overpopulation problem, start by investing in health care and provide that health care to everyone even if they can't afford it. While it may cost you more in the short term the long term benefits (at least in my opinion) out way that cost. I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to make your money back because the GDP will grow quicker.
If you have 20 minutes to kill this is a really good TEDtalk on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI
This is the website he talks about near the end of the video: http://www.gapminder.org/
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I think the biggest problem with population is the way the world economy is structured in such a way as to require the vast majority of people and geography to be in servitude to the small empires and small group of people at the top of the growth-dependent pyramid scheme. We end up with low education, nutrition, and leisure for nearly everyone in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, as well as among poor people within Europe and North America. Big surprise that birth rate demographics correlate follow the same pattern.
World population does seem to be on a trend toward stabilizing at only about five to ten times carrying capacity, mid-century. Unfortunately, even our current population is three to five times carrying capacity without massive fossil fuel inputs. [Disclaimer: these are bullshit statistics. It's impossible to really know until after an "event"] We're now at global peak "production" for oil. It's all downhill from here.
I say there's a compelling societal interest in human birth decisions of everyone in the society, despite it being politically explosive even to discuss it. We regulate all sorts of life activities. I can't drive on the street without passing a test. I can't even come to your house and fix your toilet without a plumber's license. I can't just build any house I want, wherever I want to. I'm not suggesting licensing childbearing; I'm just pointing out that the single most profound change most people make to the world is also the one that no-one else gets any say about. That has to change. Somehow.
World population does seem to be on a trend toward stabilizing at only about five to ten times carrying capacity, mid-century. Unfortunately, even our current population is three to five times carrying capacity without massive fossil fuel inputs. [Disclaimer: these are bullshit statistics. It's impossible to really know until after an "event"] We're now at global peak "production" for oil. It's all downhill from here.
I say there's a compelling societal interest in human birth decisions of everyone in the society, despite it being politically explosive even to discuss it. We regulate all sorts of life activities. I can't drive on the street without passing a test. I can't even come to your house and fix your toilet without a plumber's license. I can't just build any house I want, wherever I want to. I'm not suggesting licensing childbearing; I'm just pointing out that the single most profound change most people make to the world is also the one that no-one else gets any say about. That has to change. Somehow.
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Forget the content of the interview, enough can be drawn from the fact they were willing to do an interview with a hand puppet.
By: shazaam
