C02 "greenhouse" emissions drop to lowest levels in 20 years due to market forces

[Dacien]

You know you make no sense, right? First of all, the article obviously wants to undermine the work of climate scientists. Secondly...what does your comment after your quote have to do with anything? You seem to claim that they are wrong about human-caused climate change (is anthropomorphic the right word? doesn't that mean "looks like a human"?) when market forces are humanly triggered anyway.

You're putting anti-science talk with pro-business rhetoric and a spice of bias in a blender and trying to serve it like the nectar of the gods.

You seem to advocate that market forces will solve the problem when it wasn't that business decided to be nice to the environment, they found something cheaper and coincidentally a by-product was less CO2 emissions.

You definitely got me on the anthropomorphic thing lol! Google at least confirms I spelled it right! kek!

I knew it was anthro somethin', caused by humans.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Anthropomorphism is giving human traits to non-human things. What would that make anthropomorphic climate change even? I have no idea what they're suggesting with that. Anthropomorphic climate change would not be attributing climate change to humans, it would be giving the climate human attributes. I think someone thought the word seemed cool and decided to use it without understanding it. Gotta love when people start using words without actually knowing the definition. I don't believe the people using the word anthropomorphic to describe climate change are actually scientists just based off the fact that they are incorrectly using the word.

[therayeffect]

Awesome, when you hit a child you'll be sure to kill them! I mean you've already been in three accidents, it's bound to happen sooner or later. (Yes yes, I'm sure none of them was your fault, you don't need to bore me with the stories.)

That's a pretty retarded statement honestly. If you hit a child on a motorcycle you're still likely to kill them. SuVs are safer overall for the person in them as long as they don't act like invincible teenagers in them. Car Companies really need to quit sucking on the tit of oil companies and grow up and make some innovations. I mean it's the damn 21st century and we're still using the combustion engine. Also Brazil has it's own completely renewable fuel yet we don't? Sure makes you wonder.

[eriseis]

You definitely got me on the anthropomorphic thing lol! Google at least confirms I spelled it right! kek!

It's not like anthropogenic is a word one uses every day. I see where you got confused xD

---------- Post added 2012-08-20 at 09:53 PM ----------

Anthropomorphism is giving human traits to non-human things. What would that make anthropomorphic climate change even? I have no idea what they're suggesting with that. Anthropomorphic climate change would not be attributing climate change to humans, it would be giving the climate human attributes. I think someone thought the word seemed cool and decided to use it without understanding it. Gotta love when people start using words without actually knowing the definition. I don't believe the people using the word anthropomorphic to describe climate change are actually scientists just based off the fact that they are incorrectly using the word.

So like..Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are anthropomorphic. Did I use it right?

[Dacien]

Anthropomorphism is giving human traits to non-human things. What would that make anthropomorphic climate change even? I have no idea what they're suggesting with that. Anthropomorphic climate change would not be attributing climate change to humans, it would be giving the climate human attributes. I think someone thought the word seemed cool and decided to use it without understanding it. Gotta love when people start using words without actually knowing the definition. I don't believe the people using the word anthropomorphic to describe climate change are actually scientists just based off the fact that they are incorrectly using the word.

Yeah, that's on me. I use this excuse all the time but I was posting hastily at work heh. I googled it too quickly. I get fired up about what I hear on the news and want to post it while I'm on the clock O.O

[TEHPALLYTANK]

It's not like anthropogenic is a word one uses every day. I see where you got confused xD

---------- Post added 2012-08-20 at 09:53 PM ----------



So like..Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are anthropomorphic. Did I use it right?

Yes! I am glad I wasn't drinking water when I read your post or it would be all over my keyboard right now. On a note of my post it wasn't actually directed at the OP, it is directed at what comes up when you google "anthropomorphic climate change".

[eriseis]

Yeah, that's on me. I use this excuse all the time but I was posting hastily at work heh. I googled it too quickly. I get fired up about what I hear on the news and want to post it while I'm on the clock O.O

While on the clock!? Gasp! That's the work ethic of people on welfare!

JK

Yes! I am glad I wasn't drinking water when I read your post or it would be all over my keyboard right now. On a note of my post it wasn't actually directed at the OP, it is directed at what comes up when you google "anthropomorphic climate change".

Thank you, thank you.

[Deleted]

That's a pretty retarded statement honestly. If you hit a child on a motorcycle you're still likely to kill them. SuVs are safer overall for the person in them as long as they don't act like invincible teenagers in them. Car Companies really need to quit sucking on the tit of oil companies and grow up and make some innovations. I mean it's the damn 21st century and we're still using the combustion engine. Also Brazil has it's own completely renewable fuel yet we don't? Sure makes you wonder.

Yes, if you hit a child on a motorcycle at speed you are likely to kill them. However the speed needs to be considerably lower in an SUV compared to any other vehicle except a tank. Safer for the driver, lethal for everybody else. Wonderful.

[eriseis]

Yes, if you hit a child on a motorcycle at speed you are likely to kill them. However the speed needs to be considerably lower in an SUV compared to any other vehicle except a tank. Safer for the driver, lethal for everybody else. Wonderful.

I thought cars were being made with less sturdy materials or w/e since when you crash the force does not get transferred from the point of impact to your body or something like that.

I suck ass at physics, though.

[Creotor]

So like..Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are anthropomorphic. Did I use it right?

What?! I'll have none of that nonsense!

[therayeffect]

Yes, if you hit a child on a motorcycle at speed you are likely to kill them. However the speed needs to be considerably lower in an SUV compared to any other vehicle except a tank. Safer for the driver, lethal for everybody else. Wonderful.

I was under the impression that Motorcycles still weigh hundreds of pounds. Even if they were to 'gently' roll over a child they could still very likely kill them. Your argument makes no sense. Come back with a better one.

[Deleted]

I thought cars were being made with less sturdy materials or w/e since when you crash the force does not get transferred from the point of impact to your body or something like that.

I suck ass at physics, though.

Yes, cars are being made safer for pedestrians, however those are normal cars.. Unless they develop an SUV made of NASA memory foam they are always going to be incredibly dangerous in accidents.

[Grimbold21]

You say live at peace with the environment, I say dominate and master it.

Using alternative energies is essentially dominating the environment. While not dominating per se, in the end we're using nature for our own gain.

But considering it's you Kalyyn, it's no surprise you'd discart a peaceful option in favor xD

[eriseis]

Yes, cars are being made safer for pedestrians, however those are normal cars.. Unless they develop an SUV made of NASA memory foam they are always going to be incredibly dangerous in accidents.

Oh, so the safety is for pedestrians. I thought it was for the drivers, but I guess it makes no sense.

[Azidonis]

I need my SUV.

Sure you do.

[Deleted]

I was under the impression that Motorcycles still weigh hundreds of pounds. Even if they were to 'gently' roll over a child they could still very likely kill them. Your argument makes no sense. Come back with a better one.

I think it's more likely that you just don't understand it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-of-death.html

[Creotor]

Oh, so the safety is for pedestrians. I thought it was for the drivers, but I guess it makes no sense.

Uh... wut? It's for both. If all the cars were to be made of softer material or w/e, then everyone would benefit, the drivers and the pedestrians. Though, I suppose, the focus is mainly on the drivers at the moment and has been like that for quite some time.

[Kalyyn]

Awesome, when you hit a child you'll be sure to kill them! I mean you've already been in three accidents, it's bound to happen sooner or later. (Yes yes, I'm sure none of them was your fault, you don't need to bore me with the stories.)

You knew I was in a story telling mood today! Somebody must have tipped you off -.-
And my stories are awesome, thank you very much.

But considering it's you Kalyyn, it's no surprise you'd discart a peaceful option in favor xD

I laughed so much at this XD Yeah, that's no secret, it's just an instinctive reaction for me. If you showed me a solar-powered car and told me that it ran by stealing sunlight from the air simply out of spite, or told me that turbine farms disrupted wind and water currents simply for the amusement of mankind, I'd probably be sold in a second

---------- Post added 2012-08-21 at 02:19 AM ----------

Uh... wut? It's for both. If all the cars were to be made of softer material or w/e, then everyone would benefit, the drivers and the pedestrians. Though, I suppose, the focus is mainly on the drivers at the moment and has been like that for quite some time.

2 of my 3 accidents were nature related: One where I slid on an icy road into a pole, and the other where a flood pushed my truck into a rather deep ditch nose-first. Came out without a scratch in both, which I once again attribute to the strength of solid steel. I've never actually hit another human, or human-driven object. Which actually kind of nullifies tommypilgrim's attack against me, doesn't it?

[Deleted]

These are also the same climate scientists that environmentally-minded people point to and call Checkmate. That the vast majority of these scientists advocate anthropogenic climate change.

I think you misunderstand the difference between being a natural scientist, which makes you expert on observing actual facts about nature, modelling things based on science of nature, on one hand, and being a political/sociological psychic.

Some scientists dedicate their lives to understanding what is going on and what the facts about nature are. They don't claim, and no one claims that they will know what twists and turns policy decisions will take in or what technology will develop, for better or worse.

However, the facts they are reporting, including those about human made climate change, are still valid, even if they didn't make predictions way out of their scientific expertise.

That is, in fact, the very idea of science: You learn about stuff, then you study them further and advance our knowledge. Then there are other people learning about other stuff, study those and advance our knowledge.

You seem to claim that just because one group of scientists didn't predict something totally out of their area of expertise, the stuff they say about things WITHIN their area of expertise is invalid, when in fact, it is the other way around: Science excels when scientists are allowed to study their subjects and then other scientists study other subjects and come with reports of their findings in those areas. And this approach is what has given us the excellent understanding of, among many other things, how CO2 and other gases interact with climate.

Wonder what new things they'll be surprised by next?

Probably who wins the next superbowl will surprise a lot of climate scientists. Becuase that is not something they study on a professional and scientific basis. They'll probably not be surprised about the next scientific findings about climate science though.

Likewise, climate scientists suck at predicting next year's swimsuit fashion. Because that is not what they study professionally.

[Dacien]

I think you misunderstand the difference between being a natural scientist, which makes you expert on observing actual facts about nature, modelling things based on science of nature, on one hand, and being a political/sociological psychic.

Some scientists dedicate their lives to understanding what is going on and what the facts about nature are. They don't claim, and no one claims that they will know what twists and turns policy decisions will take in or what technology will develop, for better or worse.

However, the facts they are reporting, including those about human made climate change, are still valid, even if they didn't make predictions way out of their scientific expertise.

That is, in fact, the very idea of science: You learn about stuff, then you study them further and advance our knowledge. Then there are other people learning about other stuff, study those and advance our knowledge.

You seem to claim that just because one group of scientists didn't predict something totally out of their area of expertise, the stuff they say about things WITHIN their area of expertise is invalid, when in fact, it is the other way around:



Probably who wins the next superbowl will surprise a lot of climate scientists. Becuase that is not something they study on a professional and scientific basis. They'll probably not be surprised about the next scientific findings about climate science though.

Likewise, climate scientists suck at predicting next year's swimsuit fashion. Because that is not what they study professionally.

What do climate scientists study, then? Do they study climate change? Because that's where I'm laying my chips. And they failed to factor the market impact. I question if they're unaware of or can't be asked to account for other variables when they make declarations about the environment that masses of people hang their hat on. Just saying.