see bullshit denial like this is why I support just letting GW deniers live in their fingers-in-ears fantasy while the rest of us get the fuck off this planet and start building self-sustaining orbital habitats.

then in a few hundred years when they realize just how badly they fucked up we can all be chilling in side 3, drinking space absinthe and being all "problem, terra?" as we pointedly extort them for all their moneys worth when they desperately try to throw their fortunes at the environment in a futile attempt to salvage it.

I'm out.

You do realize none of those are actually serious honest to god proposals. They are kind of like the plans for deflecting an asteroid heading for Earth. You want the options but no one ever expects to have to use them and most everyone doesn't really think they'll work anyway. About the only geoengineering project that has a chance of seeing the light of day is the artificial trees that absorb CO2 and they refuse to implement them until they find a safe way to store the captured CO2. It is also the project that we know won't have any adverse effects we can't counter by releasing some stored CO2 or burning some coal.

'kay.

I realize that. The entire point of my first post (Here) was to show my disgust that the basic point I present within was just shoved aside and labeled as trolling only because the person who presented it did a poor job, but you could easily figure out what he was talking about if you gave a few moments to actually consider it insteadof disregarding or misrepresenting it.

It is my belief, too, that we should be eliminating carbon emissions and completely ignoring the goofy schemes/carefully researching the ones that seem legit and of minimal risk. But I guess I am just an evil, ignorant denier that loves his carbon emissions and enables all the evil coporations, so whatever.

Sith, you are reasonable enough, and tend to actually listen to what people are saying, so I wanted to give some clarification to at least one person that isn't going to just ignore everything that I say because it isn't exactly like what they agree with.

I have to admit, the "plans to fix climate change" that get all the coverage on all the media sites I go to, or any of the papers I read, tend to be the wacky ones.


Perhaps this thread would be improved by the posting of these ridiculously easy, overnight responses to cutting CO2 emissions by 99%.

So much aggression is going on here.

Why can't we respect someone's opinion even if we believe its wrong and politely tell them why citing sources and actually convincing them? (Yeah, I know I said something earlier sans good source. Bad move on my part)

It would be like... an actual debate! For the purpose of convincing people to help the movement and not just taking out your internet aggression and proving you're right?

I have done this.

I am tired of doing it.

Nobody on that side of the fence is listening.

We already know what is happening. We are fucking the earth and those in power are too busy fanning themselves with money to possibly give a shit.

Every single time evidence is brought against them, they're allegedly paid off to say the wrong thing by THE GOVERNMENT, or someone brings up the 'natural earth cycle' thing again despite that the article disproves it, or just gloss it over to restate the same condescending fact-ignoring horseshit over and over again.

I am sick to death of those who stubbornly cling to ignorance and ignore facts with logical fallacies for no discernible reason, and therefore feed more flippant disregard into society until the human race is going to be in real, honest jeopardy.

As Fifth said, if you honestly want to debate about global warming I am not stopping you, but you have to to do a lot better than THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYIN EVERYONE TO LIE! Or, in this case, WE MIGHT OVERSHOOT AND CAUSE AN ICE AGE!

EDIT:
...what goofy schemes? Carefully research what ideas? There aren't any.

Whatshisname's entire point was that we shouldn't do anything to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere because we might overshoot, even though we're already producing enough to thermonuke ourselves out of existence.

Even if we did, what 'goofy ideas' were we going through with? We're testing ideas and seeing if any of them work because we need them. It's an urgent problem that requires urgent attention! If there was one that might pose a real risk but we were doing it anyway then yes we shouldn't do it, but that isn't even happening!

Fuck, science is based on careful research and attention. Nobody's going to run into a science lab and go "HAY LET'S SHOOT A MISSILE AT THE CO2!"

I just wanted to chime in about a mistake alot of people seem to be making.

By global warming they mean planetary average is increasing. Many places experience drastically reduced tempuratures as polar is melts it releases cold water into the oceans which messes with the currents causing the tempurature to lessen. Thus global warming is why these harsh winters keep hitting the north.

It reduces temperate regions, enlarges deserts, as well as tundra.

I also find this arguement rather pointless. Who cares if we are the cause of global warming, we should be trying to reduce the amount of polution we cause anyways. In any case I'm sorry but we are screwed for the next few centuries. These are long term effects already in motion. We can lessen how bad it will be and shave a few decades off, but minus something drastic we cant stop it anymore.

Hope they come up with a way to extend our food supply. I heard worse case scenario is we will be down to only enough food to support 2 billion. Basically anyone outside the four bread/rice baskets is screwed

Just to clarify, I don't think anybody was arguing for the wacky schemes. The absolute first thing you need to do is regulate emissions and crack down on people. There is no one single "idea" to reduce emissions because it depends heavily on the industry. We had a speaker here a couple of weeks ago who has been challenging people to come up with an industry that he can't point to simple ways to reduce emissions by at least 70-75% ( I can't remember the exact figure- it was in this ballpark) and so far nobody has done it. It is simple, we just need to force the companies to do it.
These need to be done straight away.
But then we have people arguing "Oh noes, we can't lower CO2. Who knows what it'll do- I'm so wacky!"