Reply With Quote
emit instead of add. there, you win 1 internet point
what do you mean by "wrong"
That chart is a typical symptom of drifting gauge offset. They need to have it calibrated again.in arizona? you'll be just fine, honestly. main thing you'd observe are more sustained droughts (though we had a great rain season this year)...
the easiest to ramification to understand i just the sea gradually rising.now we're not talking noah's ark, but enough to screw a bunch of coastal cities, which is why Miami Beach is already investing 500 million to prepare for immediate effects (http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire....-sealevel-rise)... and also why you've got insurance companies (who believe me, are all about the money) are projecting miami to have 30 billion in expected losses in 2030 alone, when in 2008 it was about 17 billion. (page 7 here http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/li...ate-change.pdf)
now miami's just one city, and the sea level change is one factor, but it's probably the most concrete example of one area's issues.
emit instead of add. there, you win 1 internet point
what do you mean by "wrong"
you should let them know about that. also nasa
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Is it morally wrong to free CO2? Once freed, does the CO2 have an obligation to remain in the vicinity?
Not surprised, all the rain we've gotten lately.
no, i dont think its a moral issue. i think its an economic/utilitarian issue.
theres nothing "evil" about the global temperatures increasing. it's just going to be awfully inconvenient and expensive down the road. if any of it is avoidable, it would be smart to do so. its pretty childish to look at this as a good vs evil question
how much longer do you want me to play along?
It's a pretty decent chart. I've seen worse tbh
Tell me your hourly rate and I'll let you know.
Do you realize other factors are in play for photography? Cameras would see humidity under the right conditions.
That's not true.
...
but muh memes!
edit: keep trying to link to the study and keeps showing up as broken. just google Gerlach 2011 and it's the 2nd link
FOUNDER of The Weather Channel and SCIENTIST believes climate change is bullsh*t spurraider21
where's his research? published paper? anybody can go on TV or radio and say anything, that's not conclusive. i'd like to see the research behind what he's saying
what is he a scientist in? atmospheric physics? glaciology? oceanography? geology?
oh im sorry, he has a degree in journalism and has been a weather broadcaster for 60 years. that makes him a qualified scientist?
omg /thread I'm done ^
so some guy goes on TV and says "global warming is fake" and you think that's a debunking? i've watched the first 5 minutes of the video and he just keeps saying "its fake, its not real, the scientists are trying to make money" but he's not saying anything of substance. and thats the entire clip of john coleman talking. 5 minutes of him just saying "its not real, i swear"omg /thread I'm done ^
then the guy talks over the video complaining that they called him a co-founder instead of a founder... give me something of substance, Chris and i'd be glad to look into it and discuss it
some guy talking on youtube saying "its fake, its not real, its not happening" isn't a debunking
Boiled down...
Unless you believe in climate change you don't get Federal funding. Manipulated numbers with NASA writing the book. You've been duped; hoodwinked...
do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them?
and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.
So you're shutting him out because he believes in a Creator instead of Darwinism?
do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them?
and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.
no, i'm shutting him out because he said nothing of substance. just repeating "it's fake, its not happening, it makes no sense" isn't worth listening to. if I just posted a video of a guy saying "climate change is real" over and over again, would you think that it's definitive proof?So you're shutting him out because he believes in a Creator instead of Darwinism?
well, he didnt claim to be a creationist, though he said evolution doesnt make sense. his questions of dinosaurs having 1000 year lifespans, asking why we dont find much more fossils, asking how the earth could naturally form into a sphere like object? just shows he has a limited understanding of science to begin with.
but even if his understanding is , if he supported his claims with evidence, i'd take a look.
You edited your reply so allow me to respond. I'm subscribed to Anthony Brian Logan; I have been since before the elections. Like he says: show me some physical proof or evidence and also can you explain to me why you're in a hurry to pay the Carbon Tax?do you just search "climate change fake" and start posting vids here without watching them?
and then when that falls apart, you go back to the hoax/conspiracy angle as a last resort.
i edited it again, my bad
i dont care if you're subscribed to him or not. your subscription doesn't make him less credible or more credible.
any time i make a claim about climate change, i back it up with a source. i dont make up and try to pass it off as fact... and any time i read something about climate change, regardless of the perspective, i try to find the source
and if you want to talk about policies aimed at combatting it, like carbon taxes, emission regulations, etc., thats a different discussion that ties in with economics. i'm admittedly much less informed there. for me, i'm able to separate the political discussion with the scientific discussion. the debate isn't between "climate change is real vs carbon tax is bad"... those are different discussions
this thread is focused on the science itself. there's no point talking about solutions if half the people at the table aren't acknowledging there is even a problem, despite mountains of evidence.
even though coleman isn't a scientist, that doesn't really make him less credible to me, as long as he backs what he says with research or sources... so it was wrong of me to imply i dismissed him on those grounds alone. i just felt the need to rub that in because you bolded SCIENTIST in your post
now, if he claims he conducted his own research/experiment and tried to present his original data, THAT's where his not being a scientist would hurt his credibility... because he doesn't have adequate training in that field.
Chris seems like Darrin in posting youtubes mindlessly and being unable to articulate much of anything on his own.
Could you imagine how much funding you could get from Exxon, BP, the Koch Brothers, etc. if you could prove global warming was bull ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
