Climate change Intelligent Design News

New Scientist offers 33 reasons why (paywalled!)

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG we should care much about climate change (paywalled!)

One serious non-paywalled reason would have been enough.

Non-paywalled excerpt:

Most of us have taken some steps in the right direction. However, we continue to produce greenhouse gases. Sometimes, we truly cannot do better. Not everyone can afford to buy solar panels, rural residents cannot commute by subway, and people who live in cold climates cannot go without heating. These are structural barriers, beyond an individual’s control.

The biggest problem is that we live and breath and want to, like, DO stuff. Maybe better our lives or something. Sorry, our bad.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

16 Replies to “New Scientist offers 33 reasons why (paywalled!)

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Climate science itself is like a giant paywall. “97% of scientists” are convinced of AGW, but conclusive evidence that AGW exists is not anywhere accessible to anyone. In fact, current climate science itself is probably blocking everyone from a better understanding of how the earth’s climate systems actually work.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    mahuna says:

    If you want to know what’s happening in the political maneuverings of Global Warming, stop by Climate Depot. Marc Morano, the Australian who runs the site, is of course wildly condemned by the Warmists.

    The “97%” thing is a complete fraud. Practically no one responded to the poll, and anyone who expressed any positive opinion on continued investigation of the question was counted as being “against Global Warming”. Since that nonsense began, more than 1,000 scientists, including many meteorologists and climatologists, have signed a public letter in which they agree that Global Warming is false.

    But there is too much money and power at stake for the Warmists to accept defeat. If they can arrange for the “right” set of laws to be passed, they will be in complete control of the world’s economy and immune to laws passed by national governments.

  3. 3
    55rebel says:

    There is no such thing as “greenhouse gases”…. come on already!! The problem is: Geoengineering, toxic, man made chemicals, deforestation, and GMOs, period…. oh, and stupid.

  4. 4
    News says:

    55rebel: Did anyone say there was no such thing as greenhouse gases? Some of us think the critical questions revolve around what is really going on, what would actually make a difference, and would more or less human and other suffering be caused by our actions. These are not matters for picket signs.

  5. 5
    55rebel says:

    “55rebel: Did anyone say there was no such thing as greenhouse gases?”

    Yeah… Me, and fundamental physics: http://realplanet.eu/error.htm

    “Some of us think the critical questions revolve around what is really going on, what would actually make a difference,”

    What’s going on… is we are violating natural law–our Creator’s. Most ALL of us are in direct violation there of. I don’t see things changing anytime soon.

  6. 6
    55rebel says:

    …..”And except those days should be shortened , there should no flesh be saved : but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” — Matthew 24:22(KJV)

  7. 7
    anthropic says:

    I’ll tell you why we should care: $40 to $100 trillion in extra costs. That translates in millions of extra deaths, and tens to hundreds of millions more in poverty.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    “$40 to $100 trillion in extra costs. That translates in millions of extra deaths, and tens to hundreds of millions more in poverty”

    Sure. But why not make it $300 trillion? Or billions of deaths? Or billions more in poverty. Isn’t that scarier?

    Andrew

  9. 9
    55rebel says:

    Burning the natural energy currency –so-called: “fossil” fuels– of this planet, in of itself, is NOT the issue. The wasteful way in which we burn it, and adding toxic chemicals to it…. IS. Cutting down the forest (deforestation?) which thrives on CO2, is the other part of the equation that creates this dilemma (imbalance), in which we find ourselves. I need air, with oxygen…. Thanks.

    There are MUCH better, logical, and rational ways to have our cake…. and eat it to.

    “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the council of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind.” Proverbs 9:10(LLX)

    So, the problem is… There are just TOO many “unsound minds” running around, mucking things up. Someday this will all be corrected, but more than likely, not until after His second coming, and the saints are ruling with an iron rod.

    In the meantime, I guess we can all discuss the present problematic issues we face…. until we’re blue in the face.
    🙂

    “Sure. But why not make it $300 trillion? Or billions of deaths? Or billions more in poverty. Isn’t that scarier?

    Andrew”

    LMAO… indeed it is!

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    “LMAO… indeed it is!”

    55rebel,

    If I say $500 trillion, will you wet your pants?

    Andrew

  11. 11
    55rebel says:

    Nah… it ain’t like being tickled to death 😛

    For a second there, I thought you were anthropic…
    so I did edit. My response, must of sounded a bit odd.

  12. 12
    asauber says:

    “that was kind’a funny”

    Indeed. The whole thing is rather a joke.

    Andrew

  13. 13
    jw777 says:

    It is a Pascal-like wager. If we don’t give a rip, continue contributing to rampant runaway carbon, and we are wrong, we play a critical role in our own undoing forever irreparably. If we come up with increasingly viable alternative energies, and we were wrong about our contribution to climate change, we lost a few extra dollars on the front end which will ultimately break up the energy monopolies. If solar cycles and volcanic off gassing are going to bring civilization to an end prematurely, do we lose a whole lot by having tried to get ourselves off of fossil fuel? It’s a no brainer. This isn’t a conservative versus progressive issue. Subsidize clean nuclear, robotic photosynthesis, and whatever other crazy ideas out there. Let’s get off the oil teat.

  14. 14
    asauber says:

    “It is a Pascal-like wager.”

    Except for it’s not.

    “rampant runaway carbon”

    Poetry.

    “It’s a no brainer.”

    This is true. AGW is an enviro-fantasy for otherwise empty heads.

    Andrew

  15. 15
    jw777 says:

    Andrew@ 14:

    It’s not a Pascal like wager? Either humans play some percentage influence in the climate of the earth OR they don’t. Is anyone arguing that we play zero percent influence? So, we are all in agreement that humans play some percentage influence.

    Why err on the side of inaction when we all agree that humans play some role? The proper wager seems to fall on the side of action. I didn’t outline exactly what that action should be, other than breaking up the oligarchic energy kabaal that runs the world.

    I realize that we all disagree about how much influence and in what ways. That’s fine. Throwing up our hands and committing ourselves to the arbitrary will of the Universe seems a bit anti-modern; and it also cedes perpetual control to the nobles who run all of our assets and wealth. I agree that saying we know that man is the only factor, main factor, or majority factor is an overstatement. But we do have some ideas about some of the culprits which we could control. We should not try?

  16. 16
    asauber says:

    “it also cedes perpetual control to the nobles who run all of our assets and wealth.”

    I think buying into the AGW myth does this. How do you think Fat Albert can afford the mansion he most recently bought? Excercise video sales?

    Andrew

Leave a Reply