Soverign said: Kuma said: that's US problem tho.. that has nothing to do with china... china didn't even understood the concept of collague debt... I wish I could run over my protesting college students with tanks... fuckin China gets to have all the fun! D: becausem they actually spend their money to education program and subsidied collague? as well as enviromental program? not boosting their military spending? |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Kuma said: Soverign said: I wish I could run over my protesting college students with tanks... fuckin China gets to have all the fun! D: becausem they actually spend their money to education program and subsidied collague? as well as enviromental program? not boosting their military spending? No. I mean they literally run over them.  Just imagine ANTIFA's stupid faces if I could roll some Abrams over them... *Wipes away drool* Wait, I mean harvest their organs because they probably follow some crazy Tai Chi cult like Falun Gong! I mean, It has a swastika son! |
 |
Soverign said: Kuma said: becausem they actually spend their money to education program and subsidied collague? as well as enviromental program? not boosting their military spending? No. I mean they literally run over them. Just imagine ANTIFA's stupid faces if I could roll some Abrams over them... *Wipes away drool* Wait, I mean harvest their organs because they probably follow some crazy Tai Chi cult like Falun Gong! I mean, It has a swastika son! again, what year is it? we are talking about current events right? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/04/asia/china-npc-military-budget/ |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Kuma said: Soverign said: No. I mean they literally run over them. Just imagine ANTIFA's stupid faces if I could roll some Abrams over them... *Wipes away drool* Wait, I mean harvest their organs because they probably follow some crazy Tai Chi cult like Falun Gong! I mean, It has a swastika son! again, what year is it? we are talking about current events right? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/04/asia/china-npc-military-budget/ So you are saying Communism was a mistake all along? O_o You fought the US this whole time just to become like them!? |
|
Soverign said: Kuma said: again, what year is it? we are talking about current events right? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/04/asia/china-npc-military-budget/ So you are saying Communism was a mistake all along? O_o You fought the US this whole time just to become like them!? ehh.. comunism is utopia... the problem is not the idea it self, but simply impossible to apply realisticaly... also, i don't uderstand the point simply i pointing out US problem, i am fighting US and supporting their enemy... |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Kuma said: Soverign said: So you are saying Communism was a mistake all along? O_o You fought the US this whole time just to become like them!? ehh.. comunism is utopia... the problem is not the idea it self, but simply impossible to apply realisticaly... also, i don't uderstand the point simply i pointing out US problem, i am fighting US and supporting their enemy... So, like, instead of attempting to apply unrealistic Communist utopia ideals, we could instead be doing creative realistic things, that solve problems!? Yeah, you are fighting the US so hard that should the petro dollar collapse it would cause a world wide financial collapse. Not that I care, since we need a reset anyways. Best way to escape debt. :3 |
|
| @Ivich tell me more about how African superpowers are making global warming up to promote solar energy because they have, you know, lots of sun. Poor honest oil companies, they don't stand a chance against the evil leftist reptilians megacorporations. In case you're wondering, I find it funny to see you calling people "partisan shill" when you brought up your politic conspiracy bullshit here. |
DeathkoApr 24, 2017 7:32 PM
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
| To be fair, I should point this out. Corporatisim isn't Capitalism. Especially not when the government starts handing out corporate welfare checks. corpo·rate welfare noun government support or subsidy of private business, such as by tax incentives. Then you have no incentive to ever fix or solve the problem, because you won't get those handouts anymore. But then again, we aren't entirely to blame, every time we get on track to get away from Middle East oil imports, due to it being expensive as hell. They go and drop the prices and hook us like the greedy cheap bastards we are. Then raise them again... then drop them. Stop playing games with my emotions! Plus, when you do that, it collapses Venezuela's economy. While kinda funny cuz they are dirty commies. They go and blame us! Like we move the entire world just to fuck up their economy. Seriously, I gotta stop being a Zionist. LMAO. |
|
Takuan_Soho said: If that's the plan it seems to be failing, at least in North American. Average professor/university instructor pay has probably been falling over the past few decades, when you consider the move away from tenure and towards contracts.Actually, the whole point of college and college debt is not to provide business skills, but to pay university professors. Soverign said: That might be true in a select few cases, but not in general. Unless the market is uncompetitive or the subsidy design is terrible, a firm that sits back will be driven out of business. An inefficient solar panel manufacturer will be driven out of business by an efficient solar panel manufacturer, even as they both receive the same subsidy.corpo·rate welfare Then you have no incentive to ever fix or solve the problem, because you won't get those handouts anymore.noun government support or subsidy of private business, such as by tax incentives. |
JoshApr 24, 2017 7:57 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Soverign said: Kuma said: ehh.. comunism is utopia... the problem is not the idea it self, but simply impossible to apply realisticaly... also, i don't uderstand the point simply i pointing out US problem, i am fighting US and supporting their enemy... So, like, instead of attempting to apply unrealistic Communist utopia ideals, we could instead be doing creative realistic things, that solve problems!? Yeah, you are fighting the US so hard that should the petro dollar collapse it would cause a world wide financial collapse. Not that I care, since we need a reset anyways. Best way to escape debt. :3 and neglecting the problem is solution? ehh... maybe the world should stop rely on petro dollar to begin with? i mean, even saudi with their strong petro dollars know it risky to rely on them... |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
Josh said: hat might be true in a select few cases, but not in general. Unless the market is uncompetitive or the subsidy design is terrible, a firm that sits back will be driven out of business. An inefficient solar panel manufacturer will be driven out of business by an efficient solar panel manufacturer, even as they both receive the same subsidy. Not really. “The owners of the project— NRG Energy Inc., NRG, Google Inc. GOOG and BrightSource Energy Inc., the company that developed the “tower power” solar technology—call the plant a major feat of engineering that can light up about 140,000 homes a year.” “The $2.2 billion solar farm, which spans over five square miles of federal land southwest of Las Vegas, includes three towers as tall as 40-story buildings. Nearly 350,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect sunlight onto boilers atop the towers, creating steam that drives power generators.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/the-2-2-billion-bird-scorching-solar-project-at-californias-ivanpah-plant/ When you have something like this. (PhysOrg.com) -- Underground nuclear power plants no bigger than a hot tub may soon provide electricity for communities around the world. Measuring about 1.5 meters across, the mini reactors can each power about 20,000 homes. https://phys.org/news/2008-11-mini-nuclear-power-homes.html But anyways, who would really be against household solar panels? Or recycling for that matter? Kuma said: and neglecting the problem is solution? ehh... maybe the world should stop rely on petro dollar to begin with? i mean, even saudi with their strong petro dollars know it risky to rely on them... As if the Saudis could stop buying our military equipment. It isn't their fault that the United States literally becomes a different country (almost) with every new President. |
|
Soverign said: Kuma said: and neglecting the problem is solution? ehh... maybe the world should stop rely on petro dollar to begin with? i mean, even saudi with their strong petro dollars know it risky to rely on them... As if the Saudis could stop buying our military equipment. It isn't their fault that the United States literally becomes a different country (almost) with every new President. but they buy weapon to private company, not US it self... they didn't buy some nuclear weapon or shit... |
"If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| Clean energy can't compete too well with oil yet. Sure, we have biodiesel but that stuff is expensive and there's an environmental impact with it as well. Propane burns rather cleanly, but good luck finding a place to fill up your tanks. Oil / Gas is just part of the problem. You also have damage caused by the meat and farming industry. Unless you plan on giving up steak and driving a Tesla I don't know what to tell ya. |
| It's frightening how extremely anti-scientific people are being. Global Warming is a fact, the debate is over since long. Denying Global Waming because it doesn't fit your political agenda makes you nothing short of a scumbag. |
| Are we talking about "climate change in general", "scale of climate change in general", "man-made climate change", or "scale of man-made climate change"? Each of those 4 is a completely different topic, which, while having strong interdependencies, are each very different from each other in nature. Also if the climate alarmists' talk about man-made climate change is really true and we will have all the arctic ice melting in the next few decades "if we don't do anything", then we are fucked already anyway, because of China. They won't give a damn. And they are the core of the problem. They at most care about making their air a bit cleaner, but won't care about anything else. IF that is that case, then you all better pray for some technological breakthrough that turns CO2 into plastic... oh wait that tech actually already exists... so ask the climate scientists why they are not focusing 100% of their energy on that instead of doing whatever they are doing now which doesn't seem to bring any constructive results? Speaking of which, since climate science is already "settled", what would all the money for funding even be used for currently? Shouldn't climate scientist not switch over to help terraforming scientists to settle the "settled" climate change problem? Isn't Trump cutting the funding an acknowledgement that climate science is properly "settled"? People should be happy about this, since it removes any doubt now, right? I mean they even overtook a lot of long-standing questions in physics like gravity, which is AFAIK still not really "settled" yet and still mostly only based on "theories", i.e. unlike in climate science, if you proposed an alternative way for gravity to work that is consistent with the facts, then you will NOT be called a "gravity denier", but instead a "critical thinker", but climate science is already untouchable and has no further room to be questioned because it's "settled". So since climate science is already finished there is no need to fund it at this point, so isn't it better to focus on something more constructive? |
Grey-ZoneApr 25, 2017 5:16 AM
 |
| I'm regretting making this topic... |
| If you like water you already like 75% of me |
| Our jackass president literally thinks it's fake while 99% of the people who actually study this shit can provide you with a lot of evidence why it's real. But whatever, who cares....we're all gonna die, amirite? |
| Honestly... this world is going to collapse because of humans. As morbid as it is, things would be so much better on Earth if all humans just died. I hope we can do something to save the planet. SERIOUsly look at how much better the planet would fair if humans disappeared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7Q6wazD_E Disclaimer: As a human I would NOT like it if all humans disappeared, but objectively we're ruining everything* |
| If you like water you already like 75% of me |
| It was literally snowing at the end of April whilst I was walking to work this morning. Checkmate global warmingfags. |
fuck everything and rumble |
gallivant said: It was literally snowing at the end of April whilst I was walking to work this morning. Checkmate global warmingfags. Are you serious. Okay, here we go: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html "Global warming is causing more intense rain and snowstorms in the United States. Global warming means hotter air, and hotter air can hold more moisture. This translates into heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow, simply because more moisture is available to storms" |
| If you like water you already like 75% of me |
heckity_heck said: gallivant said: It was literally snowing at the end of April whilst I was walking to work this morning. Checkmate global warmingfags. Are you serious. Okay, here we go: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html "Global warming is causing more intense rain and snowstorms in the United States. Global warming means hotter air, and hotter air can hold more moisture. This translates into heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow, simply because more moisture is available to storms" I don't live in the United States. |
fuck everything and rumble |
@gallivant The information I provided for you still applies. Research it if you don't believe me. |
| If you like water you already like 75% of me |
JustALEX said: Our jackass president literally thinks it's fake while 99% of the people who actually study this shit can provide you with a lot of evidence why it's real. But whatever, who cares....we're all gonna die, amirite? Which one of the 4 topics ("climate change in general", "scale of climate change in general", "man-made climate change", or "scale of man-made climate change") do you think Trump is refering to and which one are YOU refering to? You are only throwing around words without even telling what you are arguing about. Keep in mind that almost everyone (including you) is just switching around the 4 topics whenever it's convenient or don't really specify which one they are talking about. For example it is possible that someone says "climate change is a hoax" and is refering to "scale of man-made climate change" when saying that without really specifying in words that he/she means it like that. Meanwhile you likely interpret that as "climate change in general". And if that happens any discussion becomes worthless. So make sure to specify which one you are talking about at any time. |
Grey-ZoneApr 25, 2017 10:33 AM
|
Kuma said: but they buy weapon to private company, not US it self... they didn't buy some nuclear weapon or shit... With government approval, from US defense companies. And you don't even get the best shit. Like reactive armor or depleted uranium SABOT shells. In fact, getting sidetracked here, one of the popular myths of the US funding ISIS came because Obama left tons of US military equipment in Iraq, with his disastrous retreat. We left, the next day ISIS was driving around proudly in US Humvees.  What? Like I care what the Saudis do with their toys. They mostly use them t blow up Yemen anyways. |
SoverignApr 25, 2017 10:50 AM
|
| Global warming is a major problem for our planet and our environment. It's really sad how Trump ignores it :( |
Ikaros_42oh said: ezikialrage said: Global warming is a natural occurrence. We know this because there had been multiple ice ages in this world.Heck the end of the last ice age was around 12 thousand years ago.So it makes perfect sense that the world we be getting warmer. As the earth gets warmer the process is going to speed up until something else causes the global temperature to dive and we go through another ice age.. Clean energy and global warming don't have to be part of the same topic. Just because many people think its hogwash that humans are causing climate change doesn't mean they want dirty water and dirty air. You can argue for clean air and clean water without bringing the chicken little scenario of man made global warming into it. Its about the rates here my dude, we haven't seen anything like this really. CO2 hit 410ppm recently, greenhouse effect is real and is exponential in many ways. unless we shit out some amazing tech we kinda screwed (more our kids tho) u right the mountains are prettier imo, beach more fun though 410 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a 10th a of a drop of water in a gallon size bucket. The idea that insignificant amount of CO2 is causing global warming is absurd. |
ezikialrage said: 410 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a 10th a of a drop of water in a gallon size bucket. The idea that insignificant amount of CO2 is causing global warming is absurd. I assure you its only increasing and CO2s effects on global warming are well documented. I understand its hard to see how "just" 410 parts out of a million could be so bad but don't let it fool you. research its affects. look at this rate compared to the last 4 ice age cycles and tell me something isnt drastically wrong.  280 ppm (Pre-indiustrial): The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1750-1850 timeframe was about 280 ppm (parts per million). 400 ppm (Today): Between the start of the industrial revolution and May 2013, human activity increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 400 ppm. These elevated carbon dioxide concentrations have already increased the average global temperature above pre-industrial levels by 0.85°C. As a result, we are experiencing severe weather events with wild extremes in temperature and precipitation. Climate scientists describe these anomalies as early signs of climate destabilization. Even if we stopped increasing CO2 levels now, the temperature would still rise other 0.8°C above the 0.85°C that we’ve already warmed, because of the cumulative effects described by the IPCC, above. 450 ppm (High risk): “The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: Key Findings on Climate Change” summarizes predictions by climate scientists’ models: we have a 50% chance of stabilizing the average global temperature at a 2°C increase over the pre-industrial period if we keep concentrations of CO2 under 450 ppm. A November 2013 report by PwC, Busting the carbon Budget, says that at our current rate of fossil fuel usage in the global economy, we will exceed that limit by 2034. 350 ppm (Safe): Many leading climate scientists do not have that appetite for risk. A December 2013 report by James Hansen, Johan Rockström, and 15 other scientists, “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” declares that 2°C of global warming would have disastrous consequences and could cause major dislocations for civilization. “Cumulative emissions of ~1000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. … Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. |
イカロス --I K A R O S D E S U-- "Hai master" <3cruise   Becoming the bell of my heart dont click here, baka -->> https://soundcloud.com/franciscan-guitar |
| It's man/demon made and the storm are all controlled too. Notice how none off the underwater cables are ruined after the storms. |
 |
Yudina said: Westerners blame China and demand Chinese cooperation. Then they realize that China has a bold plan to move away from coal and are investing trillions in infrastructural changes. Then they realize that China has extremely low emissions per capita, lower than the United States, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Russia. lel Lel. I wonder why? Timelapse video shot from a Beijing bank on Monday shows a thick cloud of yellow smog swallowing buildings as it rolls into the city. The footage was taken by Chas Pope, a British engineering consultant, and was shot over just 20 minutes. Many cities in China have been placed on ‘red alert’ due to soaring air pollution levels in the first days of 2017. Clouds of smog have forced flights to be cancelled and roads to be closed and have effectively left some people trapped in their homes. Pope told the Guardian that smog was one of the main drawbacks of life in Beijing. “It gets you down especially in recent winters when it seems to have been getting worse,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/weather/video/2017/jan/03/beijing-skyline-swallowed-by-smog-cloud-in-timelapse-footage-video It was jet weather control contrails by the CIA guise, I swear! |
|
Yudina said: I'm glad you're able to so eager to hone in on a single city that does contain the vast majority of Chinese citizens. It's like you love bathing in ignorance and deflection! o/ Not really. >:D Because in a few years China is going to have a devastating healthcare epidemic. I am going to laugh, so fucking hard. Do you guise want some asbestos too? It is safe I swaer! Dirt cheap! |
|
Yudina said: Soverign said: Oh please. We killed off millions of ourselves during various wars, The Three Kingdoms period, the contentious civil war before the second world war, the revolution in the aftermaths of the cultural revolution that included the oppression of dissidents, enormous famine, as well as the eventual deaths/abortions of an entire generation of females because of One Child.Not really. >:D Because in a few years China is going to have a devastating healthcare epidemic. I am going to laugh, so fucking hard. DO you guise want some asbestos too? And you think the environment is going to kill us off? lmao, please learn your Chinese history. We have one billion people despite the fact that we are experts at killing ourselves. Damn. I am going to need the big guns for this one. Yeah, well, all I need to do is get your rulers hooked on opium to carve you up? Or let you all get lung cancer. That works too. |
|
gallivant said: It was literally snowing at the end of April whilst I was walking to work this morning. Checkmate global warmingfags. "Global warmingfags" = scientific people. You obviously don't understand what Global Warming is or how it affects our planet. |
| Then I remembered my favorite song about Global Warming. XD |
|
| Weird how polarized the posts are here considering most of the information on the subject can be digested easily compared to interpreting the data. It's real, it's here and it's not unstoppable. SpamuraiSensei said: That is the issue that some of the posts seem to be neglecting is that there are more than one "harmful" gasses. It wouldn't require those exact options, but a serious restructuring on how we gain/use those resources is needed, and I personally think it is something too complicated to achieve for some societies. Oil / Gas is just part of the problem. You also have damage caused by the meat and farming industry. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| China is currently the factory for the whole world where US's industry is completely dead Yet Chinese CO2 production & fossil fuel consumption per head is far lower than US |
zodd0 said: gallivant said: It was literally snowing at the end of April whilst I was walking to work this morning. Checkmate global warmingfags. "Global warmingfags" = scientific people. You obviously don't understand what Global Warming is or how it affects our planet. and caught in a hail storm on the way home. wtf. |
fuck everything and rumble |
gallivant said: zodd0 said: "Global warmingfags" = scientific people. You obviously don't understand what Global Warming is or how it affects our planet. and caught in a hail storm on the way home. wtf. Likewise, 150 miles further north. Unreal scenes |
| Not saying we shouldn't work towards developing clean energy and ways to not drastically harm the environment, but the world hasn't been warming up at a catastrophic rate. I don't know why there's always so much doom and gloom surrounding Global Warming. Perhaps there's a money incentive behind it. The antarctic is actually gaining more ice vs what is melting. =/ |
SpamuraiSensei said: Not saying we shouldn't work towards developing clean energy and ways to not drastically harm the environment, but the world hasn't been warming up at a catastrophic rate. I don't know why there's always so much doom and gloom surrounding Global Warming. Perhaps there's a money incentive behind it. The antarctic is actually gaining more ice vs what is melting. =/ Well, isn't it strange that the people who declared their research to be "settled" and "unquestionable" are still demanding research funds for that very same thing they have already "settled"? Your "money incentive" is right there. Of course the people themselves will project that onto their opposition by saying that the opposition is being funded by the oil industry. It's very common to accuse your enemies of what you are doing yourself. And since the oil industry supposedly funds the "climate change deniers" side of researchers then why is it such an outlandish thought to say that "green energy companies", in addition to until recently the government, are funding the "climate change alarmists" side of researchers for questionable motives as well? |
|
NudeBear said: Grey-Zone said: Well, isn't it strange that the people who declared their research to be "settled" and "unquestionable" are still demanding research funds for that very same thing they have already "settled"? Your "money incentive" is right there. Of course the people themselves will project that onto their opposition by saying that the opposition is being funded by the oil industry. It's very common to accuse your enemies of what you are doing yourself. And since the oil industry supposedly funds the "climate change deniers" side of researchers then why is it such an outlandish thought to say that "green energy companies", in addition to until recently the government, are funding the "climate change alarmists" side of researchers for questionable motives as well? You and several other posters are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Whether or not mankind influences and is largely responsible for the current global warming crisis is a question that has been settled. However, there is far more to climatology than answering that question. Oceanographers still have to analyse the rising acidic content of the world's oceans, glaciologists still have to study the effects of receding glaciers, and environmentalists still have to find out which ecosystems are the most vulnerable to climate change. Climatology is multi-disciplinary, there's a lot more to it than you think there is. Also, you can't get rich off grant money you imbecile. You don't get "rich" directly, but you will have "accomplishments" under your name, i.e. a "successful career" as a scientist... which will make you richer than if you hadn't those "accomplishments" in the long term. And you are looking at it in the wrong way. MANY of those who critisize only about the numbers of "scale of man-made climate change" (i.e. accuracy of prediction models that includes the "human element") are being accused of "denying the existence of climate change alltogether". Everyone is just lumped into the same basket of "climate change deniers" and words are being redefined however it's convenient at the time. And there is good reason to be doubtful about anything that involves predictions and projections that contain the "human element", as well as predictions models with no control group whatsoever. When was the last time an "economic prediction" was considered "settled" and "undeniable"? Never, because something like a prediction model that comes true or marginally close 100% of the time without a constant control group DOES NOT EXIST. But hey, it's easy to dismiss it if you just say that the person is denying the possibility of global temperature changes alltogether. So easy with strawmen, isn't it? And calling me "imbecile" now? I see you are a very civilized person. |
Grey-ZoneApr 26, 2017 7:10 AM
|
| Yes it is we should take it seriously...we humans have led many species to extinction...trees are not too far from it |
 |
NudeBear said: Grey-Zone said: You don't get "rich" directly, but you will have "accomplishments" under your name, i.e. a "successful career" as a scientist... which will make you richer than if you hadn't those "accomplishments" in the long term. And you are looking at it in the wrong way. MANY of those who critisize only about the numbers of "scale of man-made climate change" (i.e. accuracy of prediction models that includes the "human element") are being accused of "denying the existence of climate change alltogether". Everyone is just lumped into the same basket of "climate change deniers" and words are being redefined however it's convenient at the time. And there is good reason to be doubtful about anything that involves predictions and projections that contain the "human element", as well as predictions models with no control group whatsoever. When was the last time an "economic prediction" was considered "settled" and "undeniable"? Never, because something like a prediction model that comes true or marginally close 100% of the time without a constant control group DOES NOT EXIST. But hey, it's easy to dismiss it if you just say that the person is denying the possibility of global temperature changes alltogether. So easy with strawmen, isn't it? And calling me "imbecile" now? I see you are a very civilized person. There is no "many." It's a narrative that idiots like you have concocted in order to maintain your biases. About ~3% of all research papers in academia for climatology assume that man's influence is negligible, and these researchers are all incapable of providing an alternative theory that agrees with observations, let alone able to compete with the most successful one. Yes you read that correctly, exactly all of them. Predictions about man's influence were made in the 19th century by physicists like Fourier or Arrhenius, it has been well over 100 years since they published their ideas, and it has been well over half a century since we confirmed them. But you wouldn't know that, because it's easier for you to write the comments you do; that's why you're a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you don't want to be called an imbecile, then perhaps refrain from acting like one. The "97%" figure has been debunked already, as it was cherry-picking responses. Only a very small amount of people were selected out of the original survey to design that 97% figure. They asked 10257 people originally only to "select" 77 out of them of which 75 agreed with the prediction models, which in turn created this "97%" figure. In addition 77 people is usually not seen as a "representative" amount of people for "all scientists". Also your argument about "predictions about man's influence" is a fallacy of composition. Your argument is completely worthless if you don't put it into perspective i.e. show how many of FALSE predictions have been done right next to the CORRECT ones. Don't you know about that scam technique where you make countless predictions and then call yourself a prophet by cherry-picking the ones who happen to be right? This is similar in a collective sense. It doesn't guarantee that the model that created the prediction will be right the next time. And even less it gives something like a "100%" accuracy on that. It's, again, the same reason there is no model to predict the economy with 100% accuracy or marginally close to it. As for the Dunning-Kruger effect... I only have 2 things to say to about that: 1. Who among us two acts more emotional instead of rational, i.e. who uses more ad-hominems/insults? 2. I am dealing a lot with models at college/university so I certainly feel more confident on that than the "average person" at least. |
|
Ikaros_42oh said: ezikialrage said: 410 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a 10th a of a drop of water in a gallon size bucket. The idea that insignificant amount of CO2 is causing global warming is absurd. I assure you its only increasing and CO2s effects on global warming are well documented. I understand its hard to see how "just" 410 parts out of a million could be so bad but don't let it fool you. research its affects. look at this rate compared to the last 4 ice age cycles and tell me something isnt drastically wrong. Again 400 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a drop of water in a one gallon bucket of water. You would have take a drop of water and divide it a dozen times or so and that tiny fraction of a drop of water would be a visualization of what 400 parts per million looks like. A tiny insignificant amount of CO2 is not causing the planet to warm. |
koala_tea_puns said: Global Warming is a topic that I'm deeply passionate about. As an American, what's happening in the Trump administration in regards to environmental protection and conservation is deeply upsetting. It's inevitable that temperatures will continue to rise, as no political figure seems to ever intervene in the fight for clean energy. Thoughts? I am a global warming skeptic. If you want to convince me that man is destroying everything in the atmosphere then commit to never put carbon tax on the people and find other ways to fight for the environment instead of just taking their money. If governments are ready to do that then am ready to commit to the environmental cause. As long as i see the devil hiding behind people caring for the environment then am not willing to support or believe 100%. |
ezikialrage said: Again 400 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a drop of water in a one gallon bucket of water. You would have take a drop of water and divide it a dozen times or so and that tiny fraction of a drop of water would be a visualization of what 400 parts per million looks like. A tiny insignificant amount of CO2 is not causing the planet to warm. okay bud bend over and ill show you a tenth of a drop of LSD up the butt does to your mind. Maybe then you'd understand the power of chemicals even in small batches/percentages. |
イカロス --I K A R O S D E S U-- "Hai master" <3cruise Becoming the bell of my heart dont click here, baka -->> https://soundcloud.com/franciscan-guitar |
Ikaros_42oh said: ezikialrage said: Again 400 parts per million isn't squat.Its not even a drop of water in a one gallon bucket of water. You would have take a drop of water and divide it a dozen times or so and that tiny fraction of a drop of water would be a visualization of what 400 parts per million looks like. A tiny insignificant amount of CO2 is not causing the planet to warm. okay bud bend over and ill show you a tenth of a drop of LSD up the butt does to your mind. Maybe then you'd understand the power of chemicals even in small batches/percentages. CO2 isn't lsd.So your argument is flawed. |
| don't worry probably u and ur child and their kids if u are lucky will die before that happens we have like 150 years before the earth become hell |
 |
ezikialrage said: Ikaros_42oh said: okay bud bend over and ill show you a tenth of a drop of LSD up the butt does to your mind. Maybe then you'd understand the power of chemicals even in small batches/percentages. CO2 isn't lsd.So your argument is flawed. you argued that a "tenth of a drop in a bucket" of CO2 couldnt possibly have an effect of the warming of the earth because its 'such a small amount' essentially yes? I used LSD as an example of a small amount in a tenth of a drop can have big effects on complex big systems such as yourself. Here, maybe this'll help you understand. Imagine the world as yourself. pump 38 billion tons of CO2 in your big ass every year and remove approx half through natural cycles. the ppm around you grows from 280 to 400 and its suddenly getting warmer and disturbing the climate and leading to other related problems like methane permafrost melting. you think this is slightly concerning so you go to a doctor who says "yes this is serious, you gotta quit the CO2 addiction, its gonna kill you if you keep this up". what youre doing is essentially saying "nope, sorry doc i dont believe you". my argument is not flawed. you failed to understand it. http://www.colorado.edu/today/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study |
イカロス --I K A R O S D E S U-- "Hai master" <3cruise Becoming the bell of my heart dont click here, baka -->> https://soundcloud.com/franciscan-guitar |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |