OT: Sens Lounge LXXVI | The One Where the RedBlacks won and it was a good day.

[Icelevel]

I know right? That's so cool about hockey...putting it in the net and stuff.

i don't know which part i like better. doing all the stuff or putting it in the net. probably putting it in the net.

 

[Benjamin]

meh...climate change has been occurring since the dawn of time.

I'm more interested to see what two centuries of pulling crude out of the ground and the new 'fracking' method is doing to the planet. You can't just pull millions (billions maybe by now?) of tons out of the earth and not have some sort of effect underground.

You already said meh to the answer. It'll come back to the ground, plus some extra as well.

 

[Harbinger]

Best anti virus software is what? My buddy says Ad Aware and AVG are trash.

 

[Quo]

E-Set is what I use but I'm beginning to consider it a waste of money considering my generally tame browsing habits. It works pretty well I guess.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

meh...climate change has been occurring since the dawn of time

The issue is that it's happening faster than before.

Much, much faster

 

[Icelevel]

Best anti virus software is what? My buddy says Ad Aware and AVG are trash.

free?
avast! free

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The issue is that it's happening faster than before.

Much, much faster

We've really only been tracking weather patterns for 200 or so years. That's like one second in the lifetime of the planet. It's really hard to know for sure if the changes happening now are normal or not.

The real problem is having 7+ billion humans hanging around consuming resources. No matter how much we try and conserve, 7 billion are going to consume way too much and take up too much space on the planet.

You already said meh to the answer. It'll come back to the ground, plus some extra as well.

It takes hundreds of thousands, to millions of years for dead organisms to convert into crude. In the meantime, what effects are we causing, under land, under the sea, etc, by pulling out millions of barrels of crude per day? What is "filling the gaps" in the meantime, and how is all that movement under our feet effecting everything else?

 

[Benjamin]

We've really only been tracking weather patterns for 200 or so years. That's like one second in the lifetime of the planet. It's really hard to know for sure if the changes happening now are normal or not.

Scientists know how to see weather patterns and levels from thousands of years ago. From rocks and ice etc.

97% of scientists agree that global warming was started by humans and is unnatural.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It takes hundreds of thousands, to millions of years for dead organisms to convert into crude. In the meantime, what effects are we causing, under land, under the sea, etc, by pulling out millions of barrels of crude per day? What is "filling the gaps" in the meantime, and how is all that movement under our feet effecting everything else?

Sink holes?

 

[HavlatMach9]

99% of scientists agree that global warming was started by humans and is unnatural.

i'm not for or against this stuff, but I always found it difficult to search facts, so if you believe that, I'd appreciate if you had sources so I can dive in and figure it out

 

[BonkTastic]

i'm not for or against this stuff, but I always found it difficult to search facts, so if you believe that, I'd appreciate if you had sources so I can dive in and figure it out

This is out of date by about 3 years. Shows ceiling of 98% of "most published" scientists in the field.

 

[mat_sens]

Scientists know how to see weather patterns and levels from thousands of years ago. From rocks and ice etc.

97% of scientists agree that global warming was started by humans and is unnatural.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Sink holes?

If one thing is easy, it's taking stats to prove your own opinion (not that I don't believe in what you suggest, just playing devils advocate). I could find a webpage linking to a graph that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a natural process.

I wouldn't say global warming is created by humans. But it's more likely a natural process accelerated (greatly) by humans.

 

[Icelevel]

If one thing is easy, it's taking stats to prove your own opinion (not that I don't believe in what you suggest, just playing devils advocate). I could find a webpage linking to a graph that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a natural process.

I wouldn't say global warming is created by humans. But it's more likely a natural process accelerated (greatly) by humans.

curious how much time you've spent studying it

 

[BonkTastic]

I could find a webpage linking to a graph that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a natural process.

I can't tell you how much I would love to see a webpage linking to this graph, if only to know it exists.

 

[StefanW]

If one thing is easy, it's taking stats to prove your own opinion (not that I don't believe in what you suggest, just playing devils advocate). I could find a webpage linking to a graph that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a natural process.

I wouldn't say global warming is created by humans. But it's more likely a natural process accelerated (greatly) by humans.

I would like to see that.

Climate has never been a constant. However, what is referred to as "global warming" or sometimes just "climate change" is a process specifically caused by humans. The 2 or 3% of scientists who disagree are hired by the business lobby, sort of like the scientists in the 60s and 70s who claimed that cigarettes did not cause any harm.

 

[HavlatMach9]

This is out of date by about 3 years. Shows ceiling of 98% of "most published" scientists in the field.

ah good stuff, good place to start.

didn't realize it was so lopsided to the point of not even being a debate

 

[Benjamin]

If one thing is easy, it's taking stats to prove your own opinion (not that I don't believe in what you suggest, just playing devils advocate). I could find a webpage linking to a graph that shows that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a natural process.

I wouldn't say global warming is created by humans. But it's more likely a natural process accelerated (greatly) by humans.

Link please.

 

[mat_sens]

I can't tell you how much I would love to see a webpage linking to this graph, if only to know it exists.

I was exaggerating a bit there. My point being that it's easy to skew stats. There's a lot going on around earth that can influence it. But it's easier to study factors that are within reach (with less resources being spent), that being the human influence on earth. Rather than studying sun and earth cycles. Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. I actually think most of it is due to human activities, but find it interesting to see the other side nonetheless.

Here's one interesting article :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

 

[Benjamin]

I was exaggerating a bit there. My point being that it's easy to skew stats. There's a lot going on around earth that can influence it. But it's easier to study factors that are within reach (with less resources being spent), that being the human influence on earth. Rather than studying sun and earth cycles. Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. I actually think most of it is due to human activities, but find it interesting to see the other side nonetheless.

Here's one interesting article :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...nds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/

 

[HavlatMach9]

seems that article (one mat posted) is just about how much de-carbonizing we need to do, as in it's addressing some other issue

 

[BonkTastic]

Here's one interesting article :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

As someone who has in the past worked for, and whose family currently works for a Forestry Conservation NGO, that article makes me angry in ways that I didn't know I could ever get.

 

[HavlatMach9]

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

the last sentence is pretty weak, especially considering it's on the opinion section, and is written by what I would assume someone who isn't a scientist.

 

[BonkTastic]

the last sentence is pretty weak, especially considering it's on the opinion section, and is written by what I would assume someone who isn't a scientist.

Anyone trusting THE WALL STREET JOURNAL on matters of science needs a swift slap upside the head and some quiet time alone to reflect on why they've been bad.

 

[Benjamin]

Its basically just propaganda. The owner of TWJ benefits from climate change/global warming denial.

 

[HavlatMach9]

Anyone trusting THE WALL STREET JOURNAL on matters of science needs a swift slap upside the head and some quiet time alone to reflect on why they've been bad.

am I still ok with reading video game reviews on forbes?

 

[BonkTastic]

am I still ok with reading video game reviews on forbes?

Wait... what? That exists?


Weird. I guess Forbes have found a way to monetize video game reviews.