122
123

The Left's scare tactics... (imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

全 86 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]JustWanderfulLibertarian Conservative 22ポイント23ポイント  (0子コメント)

World savers have always had an unspoken motive.

H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

[–]maceilean 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

Pretty piss-poor image. Here's the source of the quote.

[–]logicalkittenYoung Conservative 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thanks, looks like he was paraphrasing someone else. Not claiming the end of the northern polar ice cap like this image suggests. Source material is always nice to see.

[–]jeraggie 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are you expecting Al Gore to do anything but repeat someone else? He is not a scientist and I wouldn't expect him do do anything else in his presentation.

By this logic we should ignore anything he says. Which I am happy to do, but you can't use that defense to say we shouldn't judge his false statements.

[–]aurelorba 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It wasn't a false statement. He referenced one model of several that suggested a 70% possibility of the ice cap being melted in 5 years. Also consider that the great recession in 2008 greatly reduced economic activity and so CO2 emissions, something the model could not take into account.

[–]optionhome 30ポイント31ポイント  (41子コメント)

If the lying liberal media would report even 10% of the global warming nonsense predictions everyone would be laughing at them.

The fact that they still get away with their blatant lies is really a testament to how incredibly stupidity the majority of our fellow citizens are.

[–]TheEarlOfBaconfield 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Without media support Hillary would be a zero.

[–]under_armpit 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

As well as most of Reddit.

[–]catapult90 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Keyboard warriors mount up!!!!!!

[–]phondeuxLibertarian Conservative 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not that they're lying, it's that they're lazy and operate under a pecking order of 'authority of knowledge'.

What I'm saying is that the media really don't have time (or possibly the ability or inclination) to investigate any of these claims. As long as the person claiming them has an advanced academic degree the news outlets will just regurgitate them without a critical eye or glance.

[–]TheFakeTomTelescoRightward-Most Viable Candidate 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah yes, the old bullshit asymmetry principle:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than the energy needed to produce it."

[–]TheEarlOfBaconfield 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not that they're lying

tbh they are :P

[–]phondeuxLibertarian Conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't agree, I don't think they believe they're giving false information. I think that they blindly trust any academic with authority and just parrot what their statements.

[–]pensky_material 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree and think the same of the Hillary candidacy.

[–]Greg-2012 15ポイント16ポイント  (30子コメント)

I'm not a climatologist and I'm no fan of Al Gore but IMO releasing CO2 that was sequestered over billions of years can not possibly be good.

[–]kriegson 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Carbon is measured in atmosphere in PPM, Parts per million, raising it a few doesn't matter much. IE if you had a pool and dropped a few thousand grains of sand into it, there wouldn't be much affect. Now imagine instead of a pool, it's a river that has been naturally flowing and changing over the course of the last few thousand years.
The fear is from feedbacks in that carbon creating more water vapor (Strongest and largest portion of our greenhouse gasses) which simply hasn't occurred as they predicted.

Moreso, carbon and heat has been far more variable than we previously thought. If you produce more carbon, vegetation is able to grow larger due to the higher amounts of food available to it. IE there are ferns in the cretaceous period (iirc) that went extinct because there wasn't enough carbon to support them.

Carbon cannot be good?

Deforestation isn't good. Dumping toxic waste in the ocean isn't good. Trying to ban cheap, affordable energy which has allowed our species to achieve unprecedented prosperity isn't good.

And yet nuclear is ignored as a green energy solution (despite 20,000 consecutive years of operation with only 3 incidents, even the worst of which didn't create a lifeless irradiated wasteland as some feared). Deforestation and toxic dumping is hardly ever discussed next to levying carbon taxes and giving more subsidies to green energy.

The jury is out about carbon. But many are proclaiming it to be settled and ignoring every other tangible concern.

[–]CaptainPaintball 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why?

[–]NakedAndBehindYou -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

but IMO releasing CO2 that was sequestered over billions of years can not possibly be good.

Except CO2 is plant food, so there's just as much reason to believe that it might be good for the earth's ecosystem.

[–]DaveThe_blank_Libertarian Conservative 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

this is true. It was somewhat postulated by the former founder of greenpeace that our coming along and releasing the CO2 is a good thing because plant life would have begun to suffer at some point. We're saving plants people!

[–]Beardamus -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure about the media but the DOE has their climate data available for the public to review.

http://www.archive.arm.gov/armlogin/login.jsp

[–]graham0025 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

When I was I grade school they had speakers come to tell us all garbage dumps would be full by the year 2000

[–]TitFuckJoe 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm in my 40's. When I was a kid, I remember them saying there would no gas left by the year 2000. Lying is just part of liberals' every day lexicon.

[–]WhoWatchesTheWatcher 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, this is just due to misunderstanding.

Oil estimations have always been at about 40 years out. At any given point you could have asked someone in the field and they would have said "from what we have explored, oil will run out in 40 years".

Yet here it is 40 years later and we still have 40 years left. Why?

Because the act of taking stock of oil supplies requires drilling. We only know about the oil we have found, and we don't start looking for more (exploratory drilling is expensive) until we start to run out. So we can't actually say how much there is overall (other than the fact that it is non-renewable) without spending money to drill it.

[–]thisisalili 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

those figures were probably based off consumption rates of the day projected upon predicted population increase.

probably underestimating efficiency improvements and negative feedback effects, if considered at all.

edit* Also, you were a kid during a particularly scary time in the energy economy (in the wake of the OPEC crisis), so a lot of people were probably pushing pretty hard at that time.

game theory teaches that if you're at level 60, and you want to get to 50, you push for 40 and expect push-back, so it's natural to over-emphasis / exaggerate. Both sides do it

[–]ajtexasranger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Back in 2002, I remember hearing that there will be no more fossil fuels in 10 years.

[–]murmsModerate 7ポイント8ポイント  (28子コメント)

I'll just leave this here.

[–]Rhawk187 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I notice the bottom of that y-axis is "3", so if that trend continues, looks like he was off by a factor of at least 2. Failed predictions are the worst thing thing someone can do for their cause.

[–]JustWanderfulLibertarian Conservative 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dan Rather, is that you?

[–]jeraggie 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I'll leave this one

[–]WhoWatchesTheWatcher 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

The extent has increased, but the volume has decreased.

Why? Because the antarctic is not like the arctic. It is built on land, and the ice is a higher percentage of fresh water ice. This melts and freezes at a different temp. The salt water is still liquid, but cold enough to refreeze the melting "pure" ice when they collide.

This means the fresh water ice melts, some is lost (overall volume goes down) but as it spreads out it refreezes on the edges.

Even if you ignore that though and just look at area increase (not volume) the Arctic's losses are much greater than the Antarctic's gains.

[–]kriegson 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'll just leave this here

Also carbon vs global sea ice for an interesting correlation (or lack thereof).

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

[–]chloboe 15ポイント16ポイント  (13子コメント)

It seems as though you only read the title. The article, as well as the figure above disprove the point you're trying to make. This is from your article: "The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."