Splitboard.com Forums

It also increases the likelihood that the emissions reduction don't take place in areas where they should (populated areas) and occur in more rural settings. Thus you lose the potential public health benefits that will typically accompany emissions reductions when they occur within or upwind of populated locales.

Barrows wrote:


That is one of the key points of the video - the "consensus" is falling apart at an alarming rate. Another key point in the video - the data used to point towards the "hockey stick" graph was gathered from urban heat islands which obviously will skew the data. As far as glacial recession - what caused all the glaciers to recede to this point? When has the earth's climate ever been static? When has there not been hurricanes, droughts, monsoons, floods, etc etc etc? Why is it ok to discard data in genuine "science" when the data doesn't fit the model desired(East Anglia controversy)

So then the problem honestly is pollution within urban heat islands. Fix those 1st. Also mentioned in a previously related thread is lower human population growth to reduce overall pollution and destruction of resources. This is a long term educational process which could work if masses were on board and came to the conclusion voluntarily without gov't coercion. It is trending that way in industrial nations but a ramped up pace would be beneficial.

Most importantly look at the legislative "solutions". What do they fix? Who benefits? Who loses? Industry doesn't lose they just pay more to gov't if they exceed "quotas". They also pay into a corrupt trading scheme that benefits who exactly? Consumers pay more for industry abuse. Consumers of all goods and services pay an enormous burden in increased taxation, which tends to hurt the poorest the most. Where is the solution in that? Why does anyone desire that the UN and its corrupt horde of bureaucrats taxing and regulatory authority over sovereign nations? Do you think it actually ends with the initial legislation?

As to Zee's video of "What if" There are so many ways to destruct that guys argument. My post is already gone long winded. Mainly - the hype that "the consensus is in" is only that - hype. It is a false argument used to diminish those that aren't believers. If anyone can directly refute points made by the video - I'm more than happy to listen & learn.

I think that we can argue all day about whether it is natural or human-caused, but the bottom line is that it is happening. So instead of wasting time trying to figure out how to stop it, or how to reverse its effects, we should instead be focused on how to adapt to it.

There's some good info here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Sci ... icism.html

And really, that simplistic video I put up was trying to explain the complex ideas of game theory in layman's terms as it relates to climate change.

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

Game theory can't really resolve climate change, rather it's a predictor of how people will eventually behave. At best, it presents the threat in such a way as to encourage two sides of an issue to reach a compromise or face destruction. This is how it worked during the cold war where the four outcomes were: a. everybody gives up their nukes (yay!--never happened) b. Soviets "win" a nuclear war c. the US "wins" a nuclear war, and d. both sides pursue limitation treaties, test bans, and mutually assured destruction-oriented brinkmanship to try and make options b and c look less appealing. In the case of humanity versus planet, I don't think the planet's really all that scared of us, and will call our bluff.

Agreed, game theory is really about compromise...

You guys have convinced me, I am ready to sign up now;
http://www.sarahpac.com/
What other crazy shit can I dispute... 9/11... JFK assassination... Ronald Reagan is not the antichrist... am I missing anything else???

Oh, and don't forget to add the moon landing to the list Pedro!

All this shit is silly and is as real as if the lochness monster and bigfoot had a baby.

Maybe we as splitboarders caused excessive CO2 emissions by huffing and puffing our way to the top of some peak before we ride down them?! Maybe the fat lazy people in life are the true saviors and we should all be modeling their lifestyle because they aren't active enough to break a sweat or breathe hard!

As far as the climate legislation, cap and trade, etc... It's all designed to cover up what is really going on and that is the business of lining pockets. This is just like how Congress votes themselves a raise, but on a level that most Americans won't see because they are too lazy to read the bill!

More data:



From the Wall St Journal - whole article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

^^^my understanding is that the likelihood of extreme weather events is projected to increase, not their magnitude

Consistently more of these types of scientists coming "Out of the Closet"..... Incontrovertible????????



Don't worry AlGore .... your massage girl will still love you ... & Tex

Fox News...always a source of purely unbiased climate related information

Perhaps the views of a more objective entity, such as the National Academies, would be more relevant, such as the 2011 Report - America's Climate Choices.

Are human choices for energy consumption solely responsible for the current climate forcings, no...do they have a catalytic or additive effect, highly likely.

Your seriously gonna post a link to Fox News on SB.com?

Good lord your desperate for an audience. Tell Rush and Imus I said hi...