60 Minutes

what is everything, but the limits of our minds?

for example, you limit your mind by not being able to hold a contradicting belief along with scientific fact which refutes your belief.

i'm still trying to understand why seemingly intelligent people like yourself cannot break beyond the borders of the 1st dimension.

what is stopping you? laziness or fear?

 

Maybe not for long.


On Sunday, President Obama begins a three-day visit to India. As he meets with Modi to cement America’s relations with India, all eyes will be on the world’s third largest economy’s potential and what it could mean for investors worldwide. Most signs point to a bright future and to the possibility that India could well become a superpower.

...

the most important aspect of India’s infrastructure is its human capital. What makes India’s population so valuable is its large pool of young workers — 65% of India’s population is 35 or under, giving the country a strong competitive edge in the coming decades.

To realize the potential of this human capital, the government has launched several initiatives aimed at improving education, retraining rural workers for skilled jobs in other sectors, providing bank accounts to all Indians to teach personal financial planning, offering free life insurance, encouraging the wider use of computers and the Internet, and generally modernizing the workforce for the big jobs boom coming up in the fast-growing healthcare, information technology, telecom, and retail sectors.

The final factor that could position India as a superpower is its geopolitical advantage. Since his election, Modi has made a concerted effort to strengthen ties with Russia, Japan, and the U.S. For each of them, India is a valuable trading partner with a vast consumer base and labor pool waiting to be tapped. But even more significant is the strategic importance of its alliance with all those nations.

Reeling from Western economic sanctions and low oil prices, Russia needs India’s partnership more than ever to bolster its economic foothold in Asia and counter U.S. influence. Similarly, the U.S. would like to expand bilateral trade with India, which reached $95 billion in 2013, while also using the democratic nation to balance the power of China in the region. By extending the hand of friendship to all of them, Modi is being diplomatic; but he is also keeping his options open to forge partnerships that will maximize the benefit to India, both financially and politically.

http://fortune.com/2015/01/25/india-the-next-superpower/

 

You have provided no such proof.
All the things in which you blame on man (Climate-Change, Flooding, Huricanes, Drought, Extinction, etc., etc., etc.). All has happened long before the existence of man. If you want to buy a windmill, fine. If you want to invent a perpetual motion machine, fine. If you want to dream of riding a rainbow-colored, winged Pegasus/Unicorn hybrid, GREAT. Just don't think you can rejigger society based on your faulty religion.

You're a moron masquerading as a source for knowledge. You have bought into this environmental religion and you won't allow any amount of evidence to the contrary even enter your thought-process. You are a dogma-ridden tool for this religion. It's sad, but oh well.

 

Ok Yoda... step away from the shrooms.

 

you have never provided any evidence to refute the scientific fact that humans are primarily responsible for the recent 120ppm increase in C02 levels in the last 200 years, which will lead Earth's population to some very up close and personal special effects.

 

Words of wisdom for deniers:


You must unlearn what you have learned.

http://youtu.be/BQ4yd2W50No?t=10s

 

Nobody denies that human activities produce CO2. Much of it, is called breathing. What is at the crux of the issue being discussed, which your pea-brain can't process, is that CO2 causing some unnatural warming trends. History and science clearly show that these trends come about naturally. Science, further shows, these warming trends are not even unique to Earth. Therefore, it is clear that we are neither the cause of or solution to these naturally occurring trends. Climate has ALWAYS fluctuated... In the past, before man, FAR MORE THAN IT IS FLUCTUATING NOW.

Now grow up and embrace scientific FACT.

 

When it comes to "do or do not"... I wish you morons would "do" in terms of unlearning what you have learned. Your socialist, utopian masters have lead you wrong and poisoned what used to be a mind.

 

Stop trusting the information from conservative, right-wing, free market think tanks, politicians like Inhofe, and Oil Qaeda. They are out to farm you.


Here is something for critical, independent thinkers such as yourself:

http://theconversation.com/humanity-is-in-the-existential-danger-zone-study-confirms-36307

The Earth’s climate has always changed. All species eventually become extinct. But a new study has brought into sharp relief the fact that humans have, in the context of geological timescales, produced near instantaneous planetary-scale disruption. We are sowing the seeds of havoc on the Earth, it suggests, and the time is fast approaching when we will reap this harvest.

...our industrialised civilisation is driving a number of key planetary processes into areas of high risk.

...a list of nine human-driven changes to the Earth’s system: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, alteration of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling, freshwater consumption, land use change, biodiversity loss, aerosol and chemical pollution. Each of these nine, if driven hard enough, could alter the planet to the point where it becomes a much less hospitable place on which to live.

...

The past 11,000 years have seen a remarkably stable climate. The name given to this most recent geological epoch is the Holocene. It is perhaps no coincidence that human civilisation emerged during this period of stability. What is certain is that our civilisation is in very important ways dependent on the Earth system remaining within or at least approximately near Holocene conditions.

...consider the risk of humans bringing about the end of the Holocene. Some would argue that we have already entered a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – which recognises that Homo sapiens have become a planet-altering species.

...

Climate change impacts are firmly within this new yellow zone. Our atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide. To recover back to the green zone we still need to get back to 350ppm – the same precautionary boundary as before.

...life and climate are the main columns buttressing our continual existence within the Holocene. Weakening them risks amplifying other stresses on other boundaries.

...the very bad news. Given the importance of biodiversity to the functioning of the Earth’s climate and the other planetary boundaries, it is with real dismay that this study adds yet more evidence to the already burgeoning pile that concludes we appear to be doing our best to destroy it as fast as we possibly can.

Extinction rates are very hard to measure but the background rate – the rate at which species would be lost in the absence of human impacts – is something like ten a year per million species. Current extinction rates are anywhere between 100 to 1000 times higher than that. We are possibly in the middle of one of the great mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDtzN6bXAM

 

You know, it is phenomenal how arbitrary social, political and cultural values are imposed within nation states, meaning that the masses are subjected to a deliberately chosen belief system. What were everyday, ordinary Russians thinking, allowing an authoritarian state to ruthlessly control human and capital resources?

Look at our own country: the beacon of democracy and free market capital. Where have those values led us?

Truth is, most people do not have the freedom of self-determination, because of the oft, illusory indoctrination processes we undergo at a young age. Like a normal distribution with thin tails, few break out of that social conditioning.

And just like the Russians, the man-made climate change deniers are even more deeply ingrained in their belief formation than the prisoners in Plato's cave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LUptADIww

 

When humans cause an Ice Age or cause the melting of an Ice Age, let me know. Until then, shut the F up with you fear-mongering, environmental religion.

 

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

I'm sorry, you environmental-religious zealots, but correlation does not imply causation.

 

C.D. Idso and K.E. Idso’s 1998 treatise, “Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming: Where We Stand on the Issue” was prominent on the Center’s website, http://www.co2science.org, in June 2008. “Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike,” they claimed; translation: global warming is good for nature and humanity. Co-author Craig D. Idso, is the Center’s founder and former president and he’s the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy Company. Peabody is the world’s largest private coal company, fueling 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation.1

Climate skeptics have played a critical role in the coal and oil industries’ efforts to foster doubts about climate science and fears of an economic meltdown. Although the skeptics present themselves to the public as independent scientists or respected climate experts, most of the best known of these “objective thinkers” have taken significant amounts of energy industry money for themselves or their organizations, and they espouse scientifically dubious positions.

Prominent examples include Dr. S. Fred Singer, funded at times by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil; Dr. Pat Michaels, recipient of at least $165,000 from coal and other energy interests; Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who has received money from the Western Fuels Association; and climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, whose work received over $300,000 from coal and oil interests.2

Individuals like these, supporting views far outside main- stream climate science, have paraded before the media, their presence falsely suggesting a pervasive disagreement among climate scientists and obscuring their wide consensus. At times, climate skeptics have recycled discredited scientific opinion on the assumption that the public would be unable to sort out the truth.

In doing so, they enjoyed a great advantage. Unwary or irresponsible members of the press have often given these erratic views equal time with those of responsible, reputable climate scientists, creating the false impression that the basic ideas of climate science are widely disputed. Uninformed readers and listeners might be inclined to regard both sides of the make-believe controversy as equally credible, and “split the difference,” since one side said there was a serious problem and the other side claimed there was none.

For an example of just how irresponsible a newspaper can be in publishing nonsense about climate change, see, “Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth,” which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997. Its authors, chemist Arthur Robinson and his son Zachary, ran the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine outside Cave Junction, Oregon, from which they marketed nuclear bomb shelters and home-schooling advice.

Relying on the mistaken claim that changes in solar activity explain the Earth’s increase in temperatures since the Little Ice Age, the article concludes, “There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.” The article then advises readers not to worry “about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth.”

“Carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment,” the article states. “Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we are now blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.”3

Another attempt to cloak the climate disinformation campaign in the trappings of science was a “Global Warming Petition” supposedly signed by 17,000 U.S. scientists, but whose names were published without any identifying titles or affiliations. (The list included author John Grisham, several actors from the TV series M*A*S*H*, and a Spice Girl.) The petition was circulated by none other than Dr. Robinson’s Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

With the petition came a bogus “eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change,” formatted to look like a pub- lished scientific article from the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, with which it had no connection.

Filled with misinformation and put together by the Robinsons and two coauthors affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute, the tract was accompanied by a letter of endorsement from the late Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former pres- ident of the National Academy of Sciences in the 1960s, who contended that “global warming is a myth.” Dr. Seitz was a physicist, not a climatologist, and in the opinions of at least two very prominent scientists, “has no expertise in climate matters.” He had been, however, “one of the last remaining scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.” Dr. Seitz’s views illustrate that expertise and professional distinction, even in physics, does not insure good judgment in another area of science and policy.

John J. Berger, Ph.D.

 

Good thing this is science we're talking about, and you can actually double-check it to make sure it wasn't fraudulently tampered.

If AGW theory was fundamentally wrong, critics would have disproved it by now. The fact the theory still stands despite a barrage of attacks shows how strong it really is.

 

It's not science... It's consensus science.*


* "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Now go talk about some more correlations.

 

US spending on science, space, and technology
causes an increase in
Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation

I have charts and graphs to prove it.



http://www.tylervigen.com




This is how ridiculous your religion has become. Quit pretending to be science-based.

 

why do you work for a consensus science mega-corporation if you think consensus science isn't science? how could you possibly sell our products if we had no consensus around the science behind product safety, efficacy?

 

Really? That's the best you got for defending your religion?

Here is science.... There is absolutely no proof of causal relationship between global warming and CO2 levels. NONE.

Now go sell that moron.

 

I don't have to sell anything. The data speaks for itself.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf


That carbon dioxide causes warming is well established by physics theory and decades of laboratory measurements. This is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements that observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb energy.

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat.

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.


http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action?file=user_files/ih/papers/murphy_etal2009.pdf






Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans...

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed...





Deny the science all you want and keep worshipping Mammon and your Oil Qaeda gods.

The immorality of those who created Petroleum Civilization, and who want to perpetuate it, is well documented (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2014/12/petroleum-civilization-final-chapter.html), so there may be some justice coming down the pike:

"Public indifference and individual short-sightedness aside, I am furious that politicians...and anti-environment henchman are stealing the future [from children]...and laughing about it while they line their pockets with the figurative gold proffered by the fossil-fuel industry. Whether it is sheer stupidity, greed, deliberate dishonesty or all three, the outcome is the same – destruction of the environmental life-support system that keeps us all alive and prosperous. Climates change, but the rapidity with which we are disrupting the current climate on top of the already heavily compromised environmental health of the planet makes the situation dire.

My frustration with these greedy, lying bastards is personal. Human-caused climate disruption is not a belief – it is one of the best-studied phenomena on Earth. Even a half-wit can understand this...

Mark my words, you plutocrats, denialists, fossil-fuel hacks and science charlatans – your time will come when you will be backed against the wall by the full wrath of billions who have suffered from your greed and stupidity..."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28702-mourning-our-planet-climate-scientists-share-their-grieving-process

 

Get lost you sick creep ABT troll