So because it was worse in certain cases back then it's perfectly fine today. Great logic, got it. Still didn't even address the actual question either.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
So because it was worse in certain cases back then it's perfectly fine today. Great logic, got it. Still didn't even address the actual question either.
So are you saying we have MORE biodiversity and forests than we did 200 years ago? Afterall the Amazon is in better shape today than it was in the 1800s right? Also, you keep going on about history, are the oceans cleaner now? Between runoff of industrial fertilizers, oil spills and just outright dumping, you could have fooled me. You're making some big claims and calling people idiots, can you give some hard data sources to back up how the planet was more polluted back in the 1800s? Again, cities were SHIT during the industrial revolution, but I'm talking about the whole planet here.
Yeah pretty much sums up everything.
Sorry but you do not know who I am or how educated I am. You are very wrong. Here is a 10 second google to open your eyes just a little:
http://www.19thcenturybottlediggers.com/sanitation101.htm
You're using relative pollution levels in a static environment. The environment doesnt really care that you have refined your polluting 100x more efficient than 1910, because we have 100x more pollution emitting devices to push us past the safety threshold anyway.
spintroniX
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 974
yeah.. if only government had banned pollution back then, there wouldn't have been any.
I mean, they surely had access to all the fancy technology we have today that let's us produce billions of consumer products relatively cleanly.
Oh gee I dunno, when your city looks like this
and walking around like this becomes standard
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Nope. Not going to, either. I am not turkey. I am Phoenix.
I don't have a goose.
Might I recommend the veal?
Just Google 'Great Pacific garbage patch', 'Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents',
'Nuclear Detonation Timeline "1945-1998"', 'worlds biggest landfills',and then the '25 Biggest Man Made Environmental Disasters In History'
Oh, yeah, 'Space Debris'.
Honestly, you have to be off your meds to think it was worse back then, seriously.
Wrong. Cow flatulence produces more so called pollution than all the cars in the world. By any standard air quality and sanitation was FAR worse in the 19th century Industrialized world than today. Did you know that beer consumption in 18th and 19th America was so high because drinking beer was safer than drinking most water?
Fine if you want to focus on that, we have MORE COWS today than in the 1800s, you're kind of tripping over your own logic...
Proportionally[/i, air quality was proportionally worse in the 19th century. The amount of contaminants in the air measured in parts per million is certainly larger than it was in the 19th century regardless of our advancements in technology. Again you seem to think that because a Prius puts out less pollution than a Model T we are clearly living in a cleaner environment. You are failing to take into account that there are 10,000 Prius's for every Model T built, so overall we are still producing more pollution.
" Going back 100, 160 years, American cities were smelly and disgusting
New York City was notorious as the filthiest and stinkiest city around. The rumor goes that sailors could smell the city 10 miles out to sea."
19th century London:
Why is it that there are entire television series practically devoted to debunking what right wing infotainment shows spout, and not the other way around? Where's Fox's version of The Daily Show?
fixedmy7970
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 524
you warmers really dont give a hoot about the environment, if you did youd be advocating for switching to nuclear power, and not useless wealth redistribution carbon taxes.
Another logical fallacy. This is localized concentrated pollution. The environment could more easily absorb this without consequences to the planet. Imagine a single volcano that erupts in the middle of nowhere. There's a lot of pollution but it's harmless overall because it is an isolated event. Now imagine millions of much smaller volcanoes erupting constantly across the globe. Each one produces less pollution than the first, but there is still a cumulative effect of all the eruptions.
What I find odd is that you are basically supporting eco-conscious decisions that reduced pollution levels, and then attacking the same principles we continue to employ today? Do you just feel we've reached a healthy stopping point or something? I mean clearly you do not feel that the world would be better off if we maintained a consistent level of pollution from the industrial era to today do you?
Talyrius
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 552
Yes, let's turn Earth into Venus!
This thread is depressing.
This thread is depressing.
We do advocate nuclear power, although not on the mass scale necessary to completely replace all other forums of energy production. And equating carbon taxes to wealth redistribution is like saying a speeding ticket is for wealthy people to be able to drive fast.
Holy shit you can't see the forest for the trees. Incredibly ignorant on the topic while claiming others are.
(guarantee didn't even search any of the things I mentioned either)
That's what made my jaw drop, to put it mildly. I put my 2c in, though, unfortunately
FYI: The Daily Show is comedy; it is not meant to be taken seriously. Your bad...
sliverjazz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 747
what we need is to warm the earth up. it is a fact that the sun will burn off all its energy.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Well there are a lot of people that aren't "warmers" and don't like nuclear power. I personally think that fission is a better way to go than simply increasing CO2 emissions without limit but that's no easier argument to make than the dangers of manmade climate change to those who reject that it's anything to worry about.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa
"In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[9] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[10] has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[11] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[12] but many scientists doubt this proposed causal relationship.[13]
The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[14]"
Riptide_NVN
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,062
Does acid rain remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
My point is that things are getting better and not worse and to suggest that we are facing an ecological disaster is fear mongering. Certain people are using this issue to advance a political agenda/gain political/economic power and should not be taken serious.
Did you know that acid rain first became a problem in the first third of the 19th century and that if we removed all the carbon dioxide from the planet life would end?
It's just resentment. The biggest underlying theme is nothing more than "dont tell me what to do". You know it's personal when they ignore refuting evidence and only seek out to back up their own points.
For instance, someone supporting EV cars might list a bunch of pro's but then remark on the fact that battery production has its downsides and that we need to look at that. However an ICE user woud look at an EV car, list all of the negatives and none of the positives, framing the technology as complete garbage and not worthy of any further examination. This is disingenuous, the question is whether or not they even recognize what they're doing. When I outed someone for using a pro-EV article to attack EV technology by cherry picking all the dissenting criteria, they called this "researching evidence". Thats right, they actually used an article that was supportive of EV's as their source of information for why we shouldnt use EV's. This has already been demonstrated earlier in this thread when people are linking to articles that are stating the exact opposite of their own points of view, yet they were just snipping pieces of text out that didnt. Scumbags gonna scumbag.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
This thread is depressing.
Whats even more depressing is that most of the populace thinks they have a self important hand in the evolution of the Earth.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
You heard it here first, guys. Humanity can't possibly have an impact on Earth's temperature, ecosystem, or habitability.
Riptide_NVN
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,062
Or you could just answer my question with a simple yes or no.
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/one-of...ast-4-5-billion-years-is-happening-right-now/
No, that's not what it means. I don't think you understand how the world actually works enough.
No; we are disagreeing that "climate change" is caused by man and not part of a natural cycle. We are disagreeing with the absurd notion that "all" scientists agree that climate change is man-made.
Just because The Daily Show is on a network called with the word "Comedy" in it and uses jokes to drive home points does not make it any less accurate. What John Stewart has done is recognize that the rightwing has reached such levels of absurdity that it's literally hilarious. Why dont conservatives have anything equally humorous to attack liberals with?
Actually Nuclear power plants fuck up the environment so 'warmers' would be advocating for Wind, Solar, and possibly Thorium powerplants.
The only reason that Climate Change is even debated is because scientist don't go into politics. If our senators were all scientist instead of business/law students we would be far better off as debates would be in the form of research which can be peer reviewed.
The reason they adopted the phrase Climate Change over Global Warming is because people can't understand what average temperature means on a cold day.
Mine and pretty much all of your opinions on the matter don't and shouldn't mean shit as we are not the experts on the topic.
- Status