Post: #1

Today Heartiste retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status...4936861697

It's a satellite image of arctic sea-ice showing similar ice-coverage on 5/25/95 and 5/25/15, with the comment "Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago"

Well, I am generally liberal but open-minded, so I played around with the website, which allows you to pick any two dates and compare arctic sea ice coverage between them. Try, for instance,
9/25/95 v. 9/25/14
7/25/95 v. 7/25/14
6/25/94 v. 6/25/14
11/25/94 v. 11/25/13

I spent a limited amount of time trying different dates on the site, but it was easy to find dates with significant to major differences in sea-ice coverage (the above is basically a random sample--I omitted one set of dates that showed no change but did not otherwise cherry-pick for large differences).

Come on people. We're men, we're the Red Pill. We are supposed to face the truth, even when it doesn't agree with our prejudices or what we wished were true. We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science. I know the general orthodoxy these days is liberal and feminist and there's a lot of bullshit there, but that doesn't make it all bullshit. To pick one pair of dates on which sea ice was the same and use it as evidence against global warming? To forget that maybe 95 was a particularly cold year amid a warming trend, or maybe sea ice differences just don't show up in May? That's weak, man.

Post: #2

It always amazes me when I see manosphere writers or others who are supposed to function outside of mainstream media and political influence think they're being rebellious by adopting fairly common conservative tropes. Yeah, you were really going to stick it to the feminists and "leftoid scum" by voting for Mitt Romney, watching Fox News, supporting police brutality, and becoming an Evangelical Christian. Might as well attend some fucking NASCAR and WWE events while you're at it too.

Although I generally agree with all of the non-political stuff he writes, the best Heartiste/Roissy writing came between 2008 and 2010.

Post: #3

(05-27-2015 09:25 PM)Ryre Wrote:  Today Heartiste retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status...4936861697

It's a satellite image of arctic sea-ice showing similar ice-coverage on 5/25/95 and 5/25/15, with the comment "Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago"

Well, I am generally liberal but open-minded, so I played around with the website, which allows you to pick any two dates and compare arctic sea ice coverage between them. Try, for instance,
9/25/95 v. 9/25/14
7/25/95 v. 7/25/14
6/25/94 v. 6/25/14
11/25/94 v. 11/25/13

I spent a limited amount of time trying different dates on the site, but it was easy to find dates with significant to major differences in sea-ice coverage (the above is basically a random sample--I omitted one set of dates that showed no change but did not otherwise cherry-pick for large differences).

Come on people. We're men, we're the Red Pill. We are supposed to face the truth, even when it doesn't agree with our prejudices or what we wished were true. We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science. I know the general orthodoxy these days is liberal and feminist and there's a lot of bullshit there, but that doesn't make it all bullshit. To pick one pair of dates on which sea ice was the same and use it as evidence against global warming? To forget that maybe 95 was a particularly cold year amid a warming trend, or maybe sea ice differences just don't show up in May? That's weak, man.

Are you trying to shame us into believing in global warming? Cause aside from the shaming language, all you did was use the same methodology (cherry-picking years of satellite data) that the main part of your post is meant to refute.

Post: #4

Simply caring about Global Warming is absurd. It's not a political issue yet people keep trying to make it into one.

If Global Warming is true, then the way forward is to develop alternative non-carbon fuels not have a massive interventionist cap and trade bullshit that China, Russia, India, and the other 2/3's of the worlds population all ignore.

Post: #5

I'll believe global warming is a problem when the people who tell me its a problem start behaving as if its a problem. When Bill Nye stops taking private jets to climate summits, I'll be a little more considerate with how long I take a shower.

There are bigger issues than global warming right now.

I am pretty pro-environment, but the anti-intellectual furor over punishing "deniers" is disgusting. If global warming is a problem, make your case and argue for the change you want to see civilly, without calling for the jailing of dissidents and cheap shaming tactics.

Humans are hurting the environment, no question, but the biggest threat to the environment is monetary policy. We have a monetary system that needs growth every year, or else, the system collapses. Yet, the climate change leaders never advocate for a saner monetary system that would move more control of money to the hands of the people and in the process slow down the mass consumerist society and return our society to something more sustainable.


No, the climate change people advocate no monetary or banking reform, huge tax increases on energy, and massive government control over ordinary lives. Derp derp stupid rednecks so stupid republicans are so stupid deniers are so stupid derp derp Al Gore is so smart derp derp derp

Post: #6

Fuck it, i'll take it back. My political opinions are too controversial even for a red pill forum.

Post: #7

(05-27-2015 09:33 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Are you trying to shame us into believing in global warming? Cause aside from the shaming language, all you did was use the same methodology (cherry-picking years of satellite data) that the main part of your post is meant to refute.

Here's a response to the Forbes Article on the same subject.

http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/...sponse.pdf

So yes, there has been a trend of decreasing sea ice.

The vast majority of the scientific community, especially climatologists agrees that global warming is real and a major issue.

Considering how much money the fossil fuel lobby and the industries that depend on denying global warming have, its a wonder that there's such a strong consensus on global warming in the scientific community.

Post: #8

(05-27-2015 10:08 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  We have a monetary system that needs growth every year, or else, the system collapses.

Bingo. Bolded for emphasis. This is what's going to get us into trouble down the line if the trends of the past 150 years or so continue. The economic assumptions we've built our society around are simply not sustainable in a closed space. I think Roosh was on the cusp of it in his latest post about degeneracy being an esoteric form of population control.

At any rate, we should start building liquid thorium nuclear reactors right now. 1 thorium reactor takes 10 coal plants offline. You'd think the hardcore environmentalists would love that, but they're railing against that too.

Also some of the arguments I've seen against global warming/climate change from typical conservative talking points that have sadly been posted here to a large extent are flawed.

Post: #9

(05-27-2015 09:32 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  It always amazes me when I see manosphere writers or others who are supposed to function outside of mainstream media and political influence think they're being rebellious by adopting fairly common conservative tropes. Yeah, you were really going to stick it to the feminists and "leftoid scum" by voting for Mitt Romney, watching Fox News, supporting police brutality, and becoming an Evangelical Christian. Might as well attend some fucking NASCAR and WWE events while you're at it too.

Although I generally agree with all of the non-political stuff he writes, the best Heartiste/Roissy writing came between 2008 and 2010.

So your the cool edgy type that knows the right answer to everything, including widely debated topics?

And anyone in the manosphere that disagrees with your points of views are trying to be rebellious by adopting fairly common conservative view points?

Post: #10

Funny how all the global warming activists propose massive taxation and regulatory programs as a solution. It's the same as social justice warriors. In the abstract, separated from the current political and social climate, environmentalism sounds great, and social justice is an obvious good thing.

However, all the environmental activists somehow are unable to come up with any suggestions but the tired old liberal big government agenda, and somehow all the social justice warriors are unable to come up with any suggestions but the tired old liberal big government agenda.

It's like the tired old big government agenda is what they're really interested in, and they just go around looking for excuses to justify it. I think the proposed government regulations, programs, taxes, and fees will do far more harm than any problem the activists are trying to hype.

Post: #11

(05-27-2015 10:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Simply caring about Global Warming is absurd. It's not a political issue yet people keep trying to make it into one.

It's become a political issue whether we like it or not. I've said on here before - the people most frenetic and dogmatic about climate change also happen to be the people most heavily advocating government intervention, redistribution of wealth, and international tax regimes to 'solve' the problem. It's hard to believe this is coincidental.

Post: #12

Aside from political agendas, how do you guys individually feel about global warming?

Complete bullshit?
On the fence, evidence goes back and forth?
Its obvious?

Post: #13

(05-27-2015 11:15 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  Aside from political agendas, how do you guys individually feel about global warming?

Complete bullshit?
On the fence, evidence goes back and forth?
Its obvious?

I don't think the science is conclusive at all. Every time someone posts a chart of correlation between CO2 and temp, I ask, "How do we know there's a causation?"

And then... silence.

Post: #14

(05-27-2015 10:45 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  Funny how all the global warming activists propose massive taxation and regulatory programs as a solution. It's the same as social justice warriors. In the abstract, separated from the current political and social climate, environmentalism sounds great, and social justice is an obvious good thing.

However, all the environmental activists somehow are unable to come up with any suggestions but the tired old liberal big government agenda, and somehow all the social justice warriors are unable to come up with any suggestions but the tired old liberal big government agenda.

It's like the tired old big government agenda is what they're really interested in, and they just go around looking for excuses to justify it. I think the proposed government regulations, programs, taxes, and fees will do far more harm than any problem the activists are trying to hype.

Just so you know, your statement is what's known as a "strawman argument".
"All the global warming activists..."
"All the environmental activists..."
It might scare people from debating with you. Who wants to be tarred as an SJW or liking nebulous regulations or fees.
But...you can make stronger points by referring to a specific environmentalist and quoting their proposal/tax/etc. and then arguing why it won't work.

Regardless of where anyone comes down on climate change the good news is solar costs are dropping, and places like UAE are investing heavily in this.

"The Dubai solar park first made headlines last year when auctions for its second phase tender to Saudi Arabian company ACWA Power were provided at 5.85 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is the lowest solar electricity price in history. Last month, Dubai also announced it would further double the Park’s capacity for this second phase from 100 to 200 megawatts.

Once complete in 2017, the Solar Park is hoped to have an installed capacity of 3 gigawatts – making it the UAE’s biggest utility-scale solar park – as well as be home to a renewable technology research and development center, which will further boost the city government’s plans to make Dubai a leading renewables hub. Dubai has already begun to show signs of its increased ambition with January's announcement to double its renewable energy targets to 15% by 2030.

The tender process for the latest third 800 megawatt phase of the Solar Park is earmarked for later in the year."

If I was a young buck like G Manifesto used to say, getting a degree and training in "renewable energy" might be a good move.

Post: #15

Does climate change over time? Undoubtedly. Broad swaths of Earth have gone from fertile land to ice sheet and back, long before the advent of the automobile.

Has humanity contributed to the change of the climate? I don't doubt that emissions, industrial activity, deforestation, and other behavior has an influence outside of the planet's natural variation.

Are people causing catastrophic, irreversible, cataclysmic damage to the planet because they won't buy a Prius? No, not in my opinion. That's hubristic dogma of a religious caliber.

Post: #16

(05-27-2015 10:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Simply caring about Global Warming is absurd. It's not a political issue yet people keep trying to make it into one.

Its a political issue because the proposed solutions put forth in Kyoto would affect the worlds economies to such a degree, it would effectively shrink the economies of many first world nations, thus affecting unemployment, GDP, trade, etc. Its a political issue because the very nature of the problem is directly rooted in how people/countries, run their daily lives and business.

Post: #17

The global warming issue reminds me of that t-shirt in the 80's that said "why worry?" with a mushroom cloud in the background. I believe there is probably some truth to pollution damaging the environment. However, the problem is more like a runaway freight train. It's still numerous factors (natural and man made) combined which is causing the melting.

Even the SJW news network (VICE) said that it's pretty much irreversable at this point. So the "why worry?" slogan seems to fit in this scenario. There's nothing anyone can do about it anyways. Maybe our kids or grandkids will be left holding the bag. Bangladesh is already seeing this rising tide encroaching into their neighborhoods (shantytowns.)

Apparently if the oceans rise 5m or so Florida and Manhattan will be very fucked too.

Post: #18

Was there some other reason the OP mentioned global warming? Let's say I believe historical records do in fact show that the climate is warmer now than during the Little Ice Age a few centuries ago. So what?

Obviously, any mention of global warming implies that the government should do something about it. I'm familiar with the strawman argument, and other logical fallacies, but in this case, is there another reason for mentioning global warming than to imply that government action is needed? If not, then my argument was actually to the point.

Furthermore, I think the kinship between environmental activists and SLWs is undeniable. Again, I don't believe this is a strawman. The array of laws that SJWs want is far worse than any hurt feelings or injustices these laws are supposedly meant to prevent. This forum is quite familiar with SJWs, and therefore can clearly see the parallel between them and global warming activists.

You say that instead of making general points that get to the heart of the matter, I should talk about specific details, such as individual environmentalist proposals. I disagree. It is valid to make general points. Global Warming activists want giant government programs to somehow reverse climate change. I say the cure is worse than the original problem.

It is accurate to say that I am using rhetoric, however, so are you and every other person discussing this topic. There are many climate researchers, who make their living on research funds, and who exist in a social climate where it is unacceptable to question global warming. Yes, these people answer polls saying they believe. However, global warming has not been scientifically proven. When models can be developed that fit previous climate data and predict future climate patterns, then humanity will have begun to have some scientific proof of climate theories. This has not happened yet. In the meantime, global warming activists use rhetoric to push for huge government programs, and people like me who oppose huge government programs use rhetoric in response.

My rhetoric is valid and on point.

Post: #19

I don't believe in crackpotterie. It's an invention to charge extra environment friendly fees/taxes on just about anything including emission gases, and carbon tax for gas, and dump sites reserve spots for electronics which are going to be crushed, and used for their metals anyway.

Fake, fake, fake! The world can support way more than what they are telling you. It's all a money scheme.

Post: #20

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morni...oil-money/

Post: #21

Didn't read too heavily into the posts in this thread but I will say this:

Antarctic ice core samples can be drawn to depths that reflect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years into the past.

Within these ice core samples scientists can determine atmospheric CO2 content from the period.

Scientists have determined that the climate has went through numerous cold and hot periods, up until a certain point where the samples were showing a drastic increase in CO2 content, which was coincidentally during... [drum roll]... the Industrial Revolution.

Post: #22

(05-27-2015 11:15 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  Aside from political agendas, how do you guys individually feel about global warming?

Complete bullshit?
On the fence, evidence goes back and forth?
Its obvious?

I'm on the fence for some pretty hilarious reasons.

Growing up, my very conservative mother gave me some science-based reasons why global warming (GW) was false. The argument said that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) became an issue due to liberal media picking up stories that supported a financial goal. The idea is that Turner Broadcasting Systems was funded by companies that were trying to steer consumers away from products that contained CFCs.

During the time that the media spotlight became focused on GW, a number of studies conducted at the south pole had apparently shown a few different things.
1) That CFC products had been in used increasingly (in addition to population increase, vehicle use and other various greenhouse gas producing utilities/products
2) That the ozone layer appeared to be shrinking

The scientific rebuttal made some counter points to this...

1) CFCs are chemically inert. Through some chemical woo-woo that I never quite figured out, this could actually bind with some ozone chemical somewhere...basically while CFCs do pose a threat to ozone, it's not anywhere as significant as they say in the MSM or teach college.

2) While the ozone layer had been shown to be reduced, the reduction only occurred for a few months during the spring, before returning to essentially normal levels

3) Just like magnetic field around the earth switches poles cyclically, seasons rotate, and tides rise and fall, the earth heats up and cools down over time without being much cause for alarm in the grand scheme of things. I am less receptive to this idea now that I go in for more of a "sciencey" explanation of things n' stuff, as opposed to supposing god or whoever is taking care of it all


The evidence for GW has been sadly more shame based than anything else, similar to anything else a liberal or whatever would want me to believe (apparently just because I should)

1) I was told by a history professor last year (at a very liberal arts school) that we should be concerned about GW because we're the only country without a national debate about it

2) Islands in the Pacific(?) or somewhere vague had massive refugee populations fleeing rising waters that were apparently consuming their islands. Having seen no mention of this on the forum or anywhere else (not that I looked very hard) I find this a little more difficult to believe


Dudes, there might be global warming going on right under our noses, but I suspect it's a bit of a red herring. Evidence is emotionally charged, both sides have idiots wringing their hands and yelling loudly (usually an indicator that I can just not worry about the topic), and few sustainable and actionable solutions have been proposed.

I'm all for going more green, hitting up some solar energy and there have been some advances in wind turbine tech that are pretty cool, even if they're not quite ready yet.

Post: #23

(05-27-2015 11:28 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Just so you know, your statement is what's known as a "strawman argument".
"All the global warming activists..."
"All the environmental activists..."

How is citing the consensus a straw man argument? It would only be a straw man if he's misrepresenting the proposed solutions to make it easier to attack. Most climate alarmists are indeed proposing tax hikes and regulations.

It would be a straw man if he attacked them for wanting to cause massive droughts by turning available water back into ice.

Post: #24

Relevant:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/l...0696-1.pdf

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

The Lancet is a highly prestigious journal, and it is recognizing the problem of low quality or outright bullshit science being published without sufficient review. Climate science has well publicized problems in this area.

Post: #25

(05-28-2015 12:26 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 11:28 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Just so you know, your statement is what's known as a "strawman argument".
"All the global warming activists..."
"All the environmental activists..."

How is citing the consensus a straw man argument? It would only be a straw man if he's misrepresenting the proposed solutions to make it easier to attack. Most climate alarmists are indeed proposing tax hikes and regulations.

It would be a straw man if he attacked them for wanting to cause massive droughts by turning available water back into ice.

Roast Beef Curtains was creating a fictitious persona, "all 'whoever'" and then arguing against it.

Give some specific examples with references vs. "all global warming activists" and "all the environmental activists" b/c they do not "all" want these things.

Relevant:
-This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
-Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
-Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.