We need to get the bankers in touch with the physicists. With any luck, the principles of zero-point energy are analogous to the bankers' zero-point cash

4.5tn barrels of oil at a 1.8% growth rate works out to 73 years of oil left. If we harvest every last drop.

There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.

Not as much as you'd think. I ran the numbers.

3.3tn barrels of oil, at 2:1 EROEI works out to 1.65tn net barrels of oil. This is more than has ever been extracted in all of human history. And yet, at our current rate of use (30bn/yr) and growth (1.8%), we'll be out in 37 years. If it were ten times as much oil, it would still only last us just over 100 years.

Somebody doesn't understand how ridiculous the terms "unlimited" and "exponential growth" are when taken together.

The cake is no better than a correctly prepared Betty Crocker mix

There exists no such thing. FFS, stop putting crap into your body. It's not that hard to mix flour, baking soda, cocoa powder, sugar, eggs, and milk.

I don't. I grow as much as possible, which accounts for perhaps 5% of my wife and my food intake. We're expanding next year (roof, and another tier of raised bed). Maybe we'll get to 10%.

It scales great for all sorts of tasks that millions do in America. It's okay if it doesn't work for yours. My intent was to exhort others to figure out what they can do, and do it.

FWIW, all the numbers around cycling indicate it's no more dangerous than driving an SUV, and significantly less dangerous for everyone else. If you include the health benefits (for every one person who gets killed by a car, several people silently don't die of heart disease), it's comes out ahead.

Note I also mentioned in-season produce. The problem of local-but-foreign and year-round produce is well-known, but to my understanding, the situation around local, seasonal, and native produce is more favorable. The price rule of thumb is a great suggestion, though. I'll be sure to start paying more attention to that.

So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?

How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.

2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.

So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?

Wasn't there supposed to be a "trollololol" or something to that effect? You must have left it off.

You are a shill.

I missed this, somehow.

I am not in any way affiliated with climate researchers, nor do I personally benefit in any way (well, unless you count self-satisfaction) from any opinions expressed on this topic. Perhaps you're confused about the definition of "shill", too?

is NOT an appeal to authority. It's an inverse of an appeal to authority. Inverses are not logically equivalent. An appeal to authority would be this:

As I said, verbatim,

Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know.

The inverse is not logically equivalent, which was never asserted, but the inverse is certainly logically sound. This would have been plainly obvious had you paused for a minute to actually comprehend what was written.

I see that once again that you couldn't be bothered to attack my claims on their own merits as I encouraged. Pity.

Regardless, you simply cannot evade the fact that you inappropriately dismissed one of my sources out-of-hand, which I then backed up with five more sources, including the two original sources (NOAA and NASA) which confirmed the claim. This was, of course, only even one of four different lines of evidence proving my point. This whole time, you've been arguing with me (poorly, might I add), about bullshit semantics, while I have actually delivered on the goal of well-sourced evidence backing my claims.

And yet, you still have the painful ignorance to assert that I've ensured my own irrelevance. If you'd care to check the mods on our little thread here, I think even you will be able to deduce who came off as the half-wit and who the better.

I did not pretend to be a scientist, nor am I a politician. You also appear to have confused my snarky aside with my argument. The argument was the part where I succinctly demonstrated, using four non-affiliated sources, that there has been an obvious and trivially demonstrable warming of the climate during the time period in question.

Personally, I remain convinced that the relationship between carbon emissions and global temperatures is a a causal one, and the origin of our warming trend is anthropogenic in nature. However, I welcome honest, continued debate and inquiry into the exact nature of their relationship. On the other hand, I do not encourage or even tolerate the vocal opinions of people who fail to accept or acknowledge the widely-reported, multiply-confirmed, and inarguable facts surrounding this or any issue. People who do so should simply shut the fuck up and listen to others until they become at least minimally informed.

So simple logic is lost on you (because dismissing a source as non-authoritative is not an appeal to authority nor is it logically equivalent to it).

Let a equal "the Guardian". Let subject matter S equal "global temperature measurements". Let p equal "2010 was tied for the hottest year on record". From the linked page, with the logic inverted:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is incorrect.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is incorrect.

Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time? As an added bonus, you might even want to follow links and understand their contents before attempting to counter them. Otherwise, you risk looking like a complete tool.

But you attempted to comment on a story which showed that "variable A increased in value...

No. I successfully replied to a comment which stated that "CO2 outpace[d] worst-case scenarios yet the heat [didn't] show up." I then demonstrated through multiple non-affiliated sources that such a claim is laughably false, and implied that the claimant has no business participating in a discussion on a topic without extending some bare minimum effort to learn the basic facts at hand.

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
— Harlan Ellison

I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.