lol environmentalists

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

That episode of Bullshit! is complete bullshit. Good show otherwise, but they should stick to debunking crystal gazers and UFO-nuts, and they should never EVER use the Cato-institute as scientific knowhow. 

>>2
Bullshit! is a good show.  And that one was good too.  You have to find it funny that all those dumb fuck environmentalists signed a petition to ban water..

I don't think this is to say that all people who value the environment are retards, but common.  There are reasonable environmentalists on one hand, and then there are idiots on the other who don't know what the fuck they are doing.  Seriously, a petition to ban water? LOL. 

acually it's quiet correct

many fall for the banning of water, it really shows that most people that signs those petitions really are just there for the ride.

yeah, but that is not something specific for environmentalists is it. Wave that petition at a gun rally and it will have the same effect.

Thats the fucking problem with people today, they just listen to what they are told and say okay.
LOL SADDAM IS BAD AND DEMOCRACY IS GOOD AND I LOVE JESUS

>>6
Try it at a libertarian party convention, and I'd say it is arguable it wouldn't.  All political parties and organizations have a number of idiots among them, but the point of it was that environmentalists and other bandwagon retards have a disproportionately larger sum of them.

>>8
Yeah, but to state that you need to actually test for that. Who knows, maybe its libertarians that would have a disproportionally large sum of idiots (and since libertarianism is mired in fantasy that wouldnt be a suprise). As it stands no conclsion can be drawn, except LOL Penn & Teller fail statistics analysis!!!

>>1
lol people who form there opinion from Bullshit!

They were flat out wrong about second hand smoking not being bad for you. Bullshit! should be watched only for entertainment purposes, or as a reaffirmation of your opinions that you base of of empirical evidence. While the world isn't going to explode in 10 years, if we don't start turning around within the next 50 we will run into some serious trouble.

"No one can agree on what causes global warming".
Bullshit - When they say that, they listen to 1/1000 scientists.
The other 999/1000 say "global warming is caused by an increase in CO2, CH4 and water vapour in the atmosphere”.

>>11
IF 1 SCIENTIST DOESN'T AGREE IT THROWS EVERYTHING INTO DOUBT AND WE ARE RISKING TOO MUCH BY DOING ANYTHING ELSE

SORRY BUT IT MEANS YOU ARE WRONG AND WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE A FUCKING THING

o fuk the world's temperature has risen 1 degree... we're all gonna dieeeeeeee!  we need to hand over vast sweeping power to the government asap so that it can protect us

>>13

Yeah, I mean, it's just 1 little degree.

Putting the mental in enviromentalists

Fossil fuels will run low before climate change does anything dramatic. The distant future will consist of  tech'd up solar panels and nuclear power.

>>13
Thats world wide average, the poles have risen much more than 1

>>16
Do you run out of drink when your straw hits ice? Because that's what's happening with fossil fuels. OH NO THERE ARE ROCKS DOWN HERE IN THE CRUST WE'RE ALMOST OUT

>>13
If we would stop producing CO2 tomorrow the global mean temp would still rise at least one degree celsius till the end of the century (http://www.ipcc.ch/). The most extreme simutlation result predicts an increase with around ten degrees. One degree is highly problematic (radical northern icecap reduction, sealevels increase by some cm, polar bears extinct). 10 degress is catastrophic (radical southern icecap reduction, sealevels increase by around 5 meters, all coastal regions in the world=New OrleansX10).

>>12
You seriously dont understand how science works. Complete consensus is never achieved, for fuck sake, some scientists believed that the moon was made of quicksand and that a lunar landing was impossible. The majority of scientists is the best guess you have, and if you dont want to act on their warning, then move to fucking krypton.

>>19
You seriously dont understand how sarcasm works.

>>13
If you knew anything about the environment you would know that ecosystems are extremely fragile. We are throwing off the natural balance and we are already seeing the consequences. We're on the highway to hell but come one guys you can barely even see hell from here lets just keep driving lol.

>>18

Do you have a source? Or are you making things up as you go along? 'Cause I know a guy who knows a guy who pisses gasoline and shits uranium.

>>12
That's what I’m saying (or trying to say).
When 98% of all the wise men mean ONE thing - then that thing is right (fore the time being*).
And it's not only one degree. It's also more bad weather, more drought, more flush floods and higher sea levels.
And to the sea levels: Most cities that are by the sea will be severely struck if the sea rises 5 meter in 50 years.
It's not the end of the world. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn't do anything


*) 150 years ago - Newtonian movements was 100% correct - it's not anymore - but it's still not wrong.

on the larger scale of things humans tend to deal well with environmental catastrophes, it isn't a malicious entity that they have to fight, it's just shit that happenned

Besides when fossil fuels run low it will be physically impossible for humans to increase carbon emissions. It will just get absorbed by plants and plankton and transferred randomly across the surface of the planet. Us in 1st world countries won't have to worry if we don't overpopulate, even then if you had the intelligence enough to get rich you don't have to worry about a thing.

Relax.

>>23
Well yes, the plants and plankton will suck it up. In a million years, yes it will remove a big deal of the extra CO2.

I don't live a million years so I'm concerned

>>24
What the fuck? Are you one of these creationist nuts or something? I respect what christianity does from charity, but please don't get all paranoid and fuck with science.

Iron bands in sediment layers from 2.7 billion years ago prove that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere produced by primitive phototropic cyanobacteria swung from trace amounts to 0.2% in periods of less than 10000 years. The amount of oxygen absorbed by the iron is believed to be over 10 times as much oxygen as there is in the atmosphere.

Modern CO2 deprived plants and plankton will correct CO2 levels in a very short period of time. The total plant biomass of the planet has increased due to the 1 degree, meaning the more CO2 and heat there is the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

Stop worrying.

>>25
"Modern CO2 deprived plants and plankton will correct CO2 levels in a very short period of time. The total plant biomass of the planet has increased due to the 1 degree, meaning the more CO2 and heat there is the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere."
Would be true if there were enough space and enough other nutrients (like N, P and K) in natural ecosystems to support unlimited growth. Would also be true if the heat and the added labile C in the soil solution wouldnt prime the decomposers, increasing soil respiration of CO2. Would also be true if the increased sequestration wouldnt also increase N sequestration, which are a limiting nutrient in many ecosystem (this is called the progressive N limitation concept or PNL). The one degree celsius increase if human greenhouse gases would cease tomorrow takes this into account,  the effect you are describing is already accounted for in the models.

But one good thing is that an icefree arctic region means more drillable oil for Russia, Denmark, Norway, US and Canada!!! Isnt it ironic... 

>>26
Did you plan out the entire argument, study it and then pick a fact to distort to prove your fallacious argument?

l. You don't need unlimited plant growth to remove a limited amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

>>27
No, it was a fallacious fact and a distorted arguement

>>27
"You don't need unlimited plant growth to remove a limited amount of carbon from the atmosphere."
This is true of course. But you also added that this would happen in a short period of time. This demands that the sequestriation rate is radically higher than the emission rate, which it at present is very not. So what did you mean, that given enough time (like 500 years) the atmospheric CO2 level will be the same as pre industrialism concentration (1750, around 280 ppm)? The ammount presently in our atmosphere (around 380) will prolly double, even if you consider a positive feedback effect of increased plant growth. Like 60% of the worlds computer power is used to simulate these scenarios, its not like its arbitrarily pulled out of a random ass...

You all need to STFU before I throw a meteor at you annoying fuckers.

>>29
60% of the world's computing power?

That sounds like it dangled on your sphincter for a good 5 seconds before dropping off!

>>30
Think what that would do to the environment. Annoying fuckers have to be properly disposed of. Feed them to furies.

>>31
Well, (around) 60% also includes wheater forecasting, but the idea is that global climate modelling is very computer power demanding, and that a lot of investments and research has been done in this area the last 15 years, and like trying to claim this and that is not rite is like trying to second guess NASA rocket scientists about how to go to the moon.