Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

did /r/environment/ know that the largest protest for the environment in the history of the US happened yesterday? : environment

Is that... Did I see...

Snow on the ground? Is it getting too hot or something?

Weather =/= Climate.

True, but this morning I was praying for some global warming.

-28 C was not fun.

Completely understandable.

O_O That's completely unimaginable for me- the lowest I've ever experienced's about -4 or so.

Say what you like about the British Climate, but at least it's reasonably warm.

Sure, it's reasonably warm now, but good luck when the gulf stream stops.

"There is no such thing as 'too cold'- only insufficient clothing", I think the term is. winces

But, climate = weather (in some location averaged over some long period of time)

Elaborated, "Weather" is a subset of "Climate". Climate includes Weather, but Weather is not Climate in its entirety. Nit-picking, you.

XD

Not at all. The weather =/= climate rebuttal is thrown out by AGW believers whenever there is a cold weather event. Enough cold weather events = cold climate.

This isn't nit picking.

It is an understanding that these data are adding up to equal something that does not match the models. It must be kept very clear -- the premise of catastrophic AGW is that the world is rapidly warming due to human activities which will have disasterous consequences.

This is predicated on models that state unequivocally that we must now experience a warming world, not the cooling we actually have experienced.

A warming world on average . Not necessarily "A warmer season for the North-Eastern United States and Western Europe".

The models normally don't factor in the Gulf Stream decline because they predict global trends- not the weather in areas affected in the North Atlantic.

When I said world , I meant all of it (average). As I said, the weather in all of these cold places add up to make a portion of global climate.

If the majority of places and times are getting colder than they have been in recent years the world is no longer warming.

Based on the amount of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere {according the C-AGW}, we should be experiencing a vastly different, warmer, global average temperature. If this is not happening, why is the model still considered accurate by any standard?

Don't worry, once summer comes along, he'll have no choice but to believe.

Yes, because if it's snowing outside, then global warming must be a lie!

Dude, I have my suspicions on the whole CLimate Change thing...

But that is about the least informed comment in the history of the intertubes.

Too bad it still looks small.

I d actually be up for things like this if more were organized.

Really, to take back democracy and do something about climate change, we need to start showing up every Sunday at 2:00 on the the city hall lawn.

Every Sunday. At first, the group will be ignored, but if it grows bigger over time....

Sure, I m just skeptical about getting the numbers.

Petitions don't do much, protests don't do much.

Instant mobs that impede the use of coal plants would be a start - Of course then protesters will be blamed for power outages, rise of price of electricity... I think if you are a home owner and can afford it installing solar panels, wind turbines, geo thermal heating, rain water collection systems is probably the best way to make a significant contribution.

There are more organized coming out of this one - they'll be in Chicago in a couple of weeks, and another one somewhere on the eastern seaboard, I forget where.

Rainforest Action Network or Ruckus probably has info on their website. And yeah, too bad it looked so small.

Some of my friends were there (I'm in LA, so didn't make it) and they said it was pretty big on the ground.

Still, a ways to go before we get to "Hannah Montana Live in Concert" numbers. Hopefully it's the first step, and things grow from here.

Too bad combating carbon dioxide does nothing for the environment.

Depends. They quit bombing Vietnam when it became unpopular and cost too much.

Nobody's ruining the environment for FUN, but for PROFIT. Blow the profit motive out of the water, and there's going to be real change.

So there was yet another global warming protest buried by snow.

For future reference start scheduling global warming protests and hearings during the SUMMER.

Myopic/clueless downmod.

Don't be so down on yourself.

There are many myopic clueless myrmidons on Reddit.

Are you saying that we need to wait for global warming to keep the northern part of the states from dropping below freezing in the winter before we do something about it?

Yes

Al Gore's global warming dog and pony show last month canceled due to snow.

Ditto for yesterday.

If you want people to buy in to your bullshit that we have a climate crisis and should submit to additional taxation on everything that uses energy, it would be wise to discuss your global warming fantasies in August and take advantage of the built in confirmation bias.

The fact that it snows in winter does not disprove the argument that global temperatures on average are rising.

While its ironic and humorous that his show was cancelled due to snow, it doesn't mean anything.

The cause has been argued on many different grounds, but the fact that arctic ice is melting is irrefutable.

Global warming is also not the only problem with producing energy in the way we do currently.

Acid rainfall is directly connected with our means of energy production, and that has dire effects worldwide.

The fact that it snows in winter does not disprove the argument that global temperatures on average are rising. Perhaps you could help me explain this http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-temperature-falls-again.html

I'm not going to read the whole article but it seems to me like the global temperatures are rising in the graph provided on that website.

While the temperatures they are pointing out seems to have dropped the change is similar in intensity to the rise in temperature during 1998.

In the same tone of your argument against global warming can you provide explanation to the abnormal temperatures in arctic climates?

As with many statistical changes, the extremities will show signs of failure before the average.

Is it possible that our science is still not up to the task of fully explaining a dynamic natural phenomenon like global temperature?

What is the ideal temperature of the planet?

How did the last two ice ages end without the help of anthropogenic global warming?

Those questions are more rhetorical than pointed.

I have no answers to those questions, and I'm not sure science ever will as they are more philosophical in nature, but I can't ignore the fact that ice caps are melting.

That being said I can still take a stab at them.

It is not a lack of knowledge on the part of scientists to determine the planets average temperature throughout the eons, but a lack of data which keeps us from giving a definitive answer for the trends of earth's temperature.

The ideal temperature if the planet is relative to those who are living on it.

If temperatures rose and destroyed all life on this planet as we know it, and new life evolved adjusted to the higher temperatures, then the ideal temperature would be above what it is now.

Right now we need conditions to say relatively the same to keep the equilibrium we have evolved to live in.

I have no idea how to answer the last question because I am not versed in the ice ages.

I'm not arguing that we are the only cause of global warming, but I think that we are part of it.

And I think that ignoring the conditions in the arctic that are causing problems for that ecosystem is shortsighted and irresponsible.

Agreed. It's one of those situations where you have to weigh the pros and cons of action vs.

Inaction, IMHO. Action: If the majority of climatologists are correct, action means that we can continue to live on this planet, able to grow the same crops in the same areas, and able to foster the biodiversity that makes our planet both pleasant and livable.

If they're wrong, worst case scenario is that our action is costly, socially inconvenient, and may stall the rate of short-term industrial growth.

On the flip-side, long-term industrial and scientific growth may actually benefit, as human ingenuity has a great way of finding solutions to problems. Inaction: Again, if anthropogenic global warming is real, inaction may be arguably more costly.

Huge population decline, huge reduction in habitable area on the planet.

We won't be able to grow certain crops that are intolerant to temperature and humidity change, (not to mention the American Midwest becomes a dustbowl).

More violent coastal storms and rising sea levels would threaten all countries, since something like 80% of the global metropolitan population lives within 75-150 ft of sea level (don't remember the exact figure).

Inaction avoids short-term costs, at the risk of incurring irreversable long-term ones. This may seem an over-simplification, but better safe than sorry.

I'm a safe driver, but I still buckle my seat-belt.

I don't need to explain it;

Arstechnica's John Timmer covered the topic quite well recently: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugliness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.ars

No but it was 37 degrees on the beaches in Florida this morning.

Below 40 in March is pretty unusual for that state considering all the hullabaloo about global warming.

You can't use unusual situations to argue against a growing trend.

The average temperature in many climates is rising, melting ice in the arctic and driving warm weather animals further north.

I think the original point was that people will use unusual situations to argue against a growing trend.

People may look at pictures of a giant protest in the snow and laugh it off, unfortunately.

Sure and it could even trigger a cooing trend resulting in colder weather, but you aren't making the connect that creating public awareness and scientific reality have little to do with each other.

Actually, I know that stirring up public awareness is extremely important, but we cannot stir up a following based sensationally exaggerated stories.

It is important to tell people the truth of the matter so that your base is strong. We have seen this evidenced in the government's propoganda for the past 8 years.

And even if it doesn't not all things that will happen are bad.

Http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange

The world as a whole is warming up, that doesn't mean every part of the world is going to be warmer. Pathetic how deniers try to use the 'but it snowed therefore global warming isn't happening!', yes it's as pathetic as the advocates who are like 'but it was really hot, so it is!'. Both don't even understand the basics of what is happening.

Wrong. I am completely aware of what is happening.

We are being fed a bunch of doomsday bullshit in order to generate a pretext for global taxation.

Problem is politicians don't understand that you can't argue science into place ;)

Yes, there's been posts on it for at least a month.

Since people "believe" human caused global warming is significant & catastrophic, can this be taken as a religion? In which case, my athiesm will continue to be both valid & efficient.

If you're making up assumptions about how people perceive the effects of global warming, then sure, you can take it as a religion.

What assumption did I make up about how people percieve the effects of global warming?

"Since people "believe" human caused global warming" You are assuming that people believe in global warming by its first definition: "1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in>

<believes in ghosts>

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>" where others use the second definition.

If I was assuming what you claim, I would not ask the question.

My question, precisely, is whether or not the belief has now "jumped the shark" and gone to full-blown religion.

Meeting together to chant (pray) and share in fellowship based around an imagined future with ardent zeal, shunning those who don't see the world as you do, labeling "deniers" of your beliefs as dangerous and evil;

These all have distinct similarities to religion.

Do not conflate religion with an all powerful being or the "after-life".

Think instead about "belief in the powers that control human destiny" as something that defines religion.

No, it has not.

I, on the other hand, am not quite so confident as you on this one.

There is very little left -- they have services, give thithes, observe rituals, believe in an apocalypse caused by human's bad behaviour (sin) and avarice... Some ancient religions didn't even have that much.

They only shared the trait that some members of the society could see the future and interpret signs.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but if you are gleaning your knowledge of environmentalists from the internet or the media you must understand that those mediums exaggerate people's opinions.

I am an environmentalist.

C-AGW is not environmentalism. It is sad that the environmental movement, our movement (my movement) has been corrupted by this thing.

All of the great work done throughout the 80s and 90s to get people on board with respect to taking care of the environment may be blown as a result of this power play. I'm rather depressed to find that, for most people, this is either the only or most important environmental issue they know of.

I was there, it was great.

As far as people talking about it snowing on a coal plant protest for the environment .

Refer to this \/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

I protested the environment by getting really sick and refusing to set foot outside.

Of course not. We're keyboard jockeys.

Environmentalists hate reddit !!

I didn't intend for this to be a digg at redditors (...) I actually was curious since searches didn't turn up anything on the action (not that that means anything with the search function), and I had seen almost no coverage of it in any major publications.

I knew. I also tried to organize a similar thing for Toronto (at treehugger.com) but gave up because I couldn't find enough Canadians to join me without looking foolish in the process.

What's with the "Carbon Free / Nuclear Free" banner?

Nuclear will likely be a significant piece of the solution.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet