Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

It was all staged at Studio 54 in NYC.  Most likely they were on drugs too.

Enought music, drugs, and the internet -- people will believe anything.

I agree with you. However, you can also say that most people willingly remian ignorant. There have always been books to learn from; now, we have the Internet which makes things easier. Sadly, most people are still very much interested in "bread and entertainment" - just like in the ancient Rome.

I hope, however, that my thoughts have had at least a somewhat positive impact on stimulating some people's minds. I could see that some of them switched from shallow one-liners and started expressing some of their ideas - misguided though they may be. Hopefully, they, too, will open their minds to independent research and learn a few things and teach a few things to others.

For me, though, I am done debating. I think I presented my thoughts in mostly clear, positive, and respectful manner. For now, I need to keep learning new things. This time in chess. I know I have lots of misguided ideas about the game and a thorough, indepedent research from the right sources can enrich my knowledge and appreciation of the game. I wish all people best of luck and I leave the thread to you all.

You certainly made your points known...wheather they were clearly understood, that's the question!

Ya ya.. Somehow the affect of human actions are more acceptable when looking them in smaller scale. Hardly anyone would claim there's no affect in Cali's water issues due to the sport of golf. There has always been droughts, right? ;-)

Maybe the murder rate the USA is inferior in comparison to the Netherlands due to population density..? XD The Netherlands has one of the worlds highest population density in the world. Your Queen told the land is filled when there was about 10M people, now about 17M.. Ok, a bad joke.

I would say your comment, never_be_clever, supports my question about the down sides of environmental (alarmists) agenda. The worst outcomes are better (and way cheaper) energy sources, superior energy efficiency in vehicles, better housing.. All very copable in my opinion. =)

My comment was referring to this whole thread. I don't see a down side in environmentalism concearning GW. Acting very pro-cole on the other hand could result very poorly. My comment about population density was about the claims that we need billions more humans to Tellus. =)

There's some great argumentation and wake-up call about the need of solidarity! I thank you for it, never_be_clever.

To be clever is to write more concisely.

Good. Two short posts to read. I can't read those great long volumes that people write. :)

To be wise is better than to be fortunate.

If it's more than a couple of lines I skip it.

Even I'm sick of trams now. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

Good article, thanks.

Thank god, some rambling opinion piece on Newsmax says the Earth is actually cooling, we can all rest easy.

That was very, very funny but awfully put together..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2740788/Global-warming-pause-19-years-Data-reveals-Earth-s-temperature-remained-CONSTANT-1995.html

"Since the turn of the century, there has been little increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, new research claims.

Previous studies claimed this hiatus has lasted for 15 years, but new research believes the temperature has remained almost constant since 1995."

No one has yet to suggest what the bad out-comes are from actions taking place to cut down co2 and other greenhouse gass emissions. And yes, there will be some people making $'s of something.. Fossile fuels need to be replaced at some point, right? Is the transition ever going to be painless? No. Better efficiency, sustainable and renawble energy sources, consuming habbits, all that, is going to change! Falsely claiming that climate change is a hoax is just like brawling. It makes as much sence as telling firefighters they put out the fire in a wrong way.

Just put the two consepts in comparison. Money is made from both pro- and anti coal side (if someone claims that there's something more honest about oil $'s, well, that person would be plain stupid).

What is the outcome of these lines? For the best case scenario:

Anti-coal side (climate change is happening and we commit to take actions in preventing it):

Housing will be cheaper and there's going to be better indoor climate in every climate. Due to the lower utility costs, the wealth attached to buildings will be with higher value.

Our transportation will be closer to sci-fi standard, resulting in cheaper and cleaner ways of going from a to b. Add the huge improvement of air quality..

our biosphere will remaing much like it is supposed to be (species created by God or evolved via evolution, what ever suites your thinking, will keep roaming..).

For the pro-coal thinking:

The same shit will continue, some minor improvements, much inferior to the huge leaps in progress in comparison.

There will be oil from new deposits and from polar regions. More political disputes, as the oil and gass deposits are local and not all nationalities get to benefit from them. (Unlike in the alternative path, renewable energy can be produced locally.. I'm not saying someone would buzz in only for oil.. =/

In the worst case scenario:

Well, figure it out! There's one party that is wrong here.. You wanna play some russian roulette? ;-) It should be safe, as YOU'RE never mistaken, right?

From a biological point of view, a warmer, moister, and more lush worldwide climate, with higher CO2 and oxygen, is good for life on the planet.

Indeed, for a different selection of life.

The big problem with Jamie's statement is the "moister" part.  I'm dubious.