Reply With Quote
I ain't buyin' the hack and I ain't buyin' global warming/change. Even if you put a gun to my head. No- in'-way. The global thing is to take money from us. And the hack is a money grab as well. Just hasn't gotten that far yet. But, it will.
You think it's bull because you don't like the idea of it.
You tell a kid Santa is make believe, and he's going to fight you on it because he hates the idea of Santa being imaginary
I ain't buyin' the hack and I ain't buyin' global warming/change. Even if you put a gun to my head. No- in'-way. The global thing is to take money from us. And the hack is a money grab as well. Just hasn't gotten that far yet. But, it will.
My point exactly. Like a child throwing a tantrum... "You're lying! Santa is real! I ain't buyin that he's fake"
The Santa comparison is all yours. Knock yerself out.
If you can explain how exactly it's a bull hoax I'm all ears. If you're just gonna say "it ain't real I'll never believe it because... liberals!" then the Santa shoe fits
You're the one who invented it,,,prove it and the stupid ing hack horse .
I didn't invent climate change theory any more than I invented plate tectonic theory or the germ theory
In an oversimplified nuts ?
1 - carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Simply a property of the compound
2 - carbon dioxide levels are one of the major drivers of global climate (along with other factors such as solar activity, wobble of the earth)
3 - since industrialization, we've been injecting way more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would have happened naturally. We can measure the amounts of artificial co2 vs natural co2 with some accuracy
4 - as predicted by scientists going back to the 50's, following the massive co2 emissions, global temperatures have been rising
5 - there are negative ramifications from these changes
The earth's climate has had billions of years of natural variations. Hot periods, ice ages. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to have an effect on it. Deforestation can happen naturally too. That doesn't mean humans never chopped down forests.
Last edited by spurraider21; 01-20-2017 at 06:23 PM.
Why do you not trust the US Republican party ahead of scientists? Why do you hate America?
Lost my way with jesus
elaborate, else you're playing the santa card
No, that is your card.
Only pussies and assholes play the Santa card
Ocean rise is slow, and will occur anyway. We Any added warming and sheet ice melt CO2 might cause is small. The natural component will have the oceans rise anyway.
Until very recent history, plate tectonic theory wasn't accepted science. It wasn't fully embraced until the late 1960's. Just sayin.
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Two percent of the atmosphere is comprised of greenhouse gases. Of that 2%, CO2 is less than 4%. Of that 4%, humans contribute less than 4%. By definition, ANYTHING humans contribute is more than would occur naturally, but "way more than would occur naturally" is a little hyperbolic.
4. True, for the most part, but about 1/3 of ALL human CO2 emissions have occurred in the last 20 years. Temperature has been fairly flat over this time period.
5. There are also some positive ramifications.
As for your last statement, those natural variations have dwarfed any human effects (so far).
i'm aware. i hope i didnt leave the impression that plate tecntonic theory was hundreds of years old, dont think i implied that
1 and 2 are agreed.1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Two percent of the atmosphere is comprised of greenhouse gases. Of that 2%, CO2 is less than 4%. Of that 4%, humans contribute less than 4%. By definition, ANYTHING humans contribute is more than would occur naturally, but "way more than would occur naturally" is a little hyperbolic.
4. True, for the most part, but about 1/3 of ALL human CO2 emissions have occurred in the last 20 years. Temperature has been fairly flat over this time period.
5. There are also some positive ramifications.
As for your last statement, those natural variations have dwarfed any human effects (so far).
3) you bring up that the greenhouse gases make up a small percent of the atmosphere and that co2 is a small percent of greenhouse gases. agreed on both counts. but are you implying that because something is small, it can't have a big effect? so CO2 makes up of 4% of 2%, which is .08%. accurate figure. yet that small 0.08% of the atmospehere is responsible and necessary for all plant life on earth, which is therefore responsible for all animal life on earth. this notion that something very small can't have a big effect is a "common sense" argument that flies directly in the face of reality. there are drugs that are lethal at smaller percentages than that.
water vapor makes up of 80% of greenhouse gases, but water vapor levels are basically entirely dependent on temperature. even if we pumped more water vapor in the air, it would rain down. co2 doesn't rain down, though, it ac ulates, and we can measure this. it should take somewhere between 5k and 20k years for co2 to increase by 100ppm. instead we've seen it jump 100ppm in the last 120 years. we've upset the natural cycle. in the natural cycle, very little co2 ac ulates over time. there is a rough state of equilibrium. even if we're adding a small amount, those small amounts are ac ulating instead of being cycled. that's why its not hyperbolic to say "way more than would occur naturally." CO2 ac ulation would take at best 40x longer to ac ulate at the rate it currently is, and at worst 160 times longer. that's pretty significant
4) it's actually incredibly consistent with mean temperature anomolies... (source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604)
5) yes there are some positives. do you think the positives outweigh the negatives? why aren't we actively working to pump even more co2 in the air? heck, why not pump more methane, is its has an even more potent greenhouse effect?
Those natural variations have dwarfed human effects because those humane effects have only been active for something close to 150 years. Many of those natural effects, such as the earth's wobble or cosmic rays, are long term cycles that have no bearing on temperature changes of this short a timescale. The major short scale variations are the el nino/la nina effects, and the short 11 year solar cycle, which are all incorporated into climate models and accounted for.
^I don't disagree that a small quan y of something CAN have a large effect, but it also may not. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is still an active area of research and has a high degree of uncertainty.
ehh... thats merchants of doubt stuff. we know the sensitivity to CO2 in a vacuum. doubling CO2 concentration should warm 1.8 degrees celsius. the question is how to factor in all the positive and negative feedback mechanisms. there is variance in these studies, but they almost all converge on a range from 2 to 4 degrees celsius for a doubling of CO2. almost none say its below 2, and there are some that exceed 4, but thats the generally accepted range
im sure roy spencer disagrees... but he's got a serious confirmation bias thing going on. he's a signatory to this
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/...lobal-warming/
global warming doenst exist because jesus is protecting us... cool beans
Last edited by spurraider21; 01-21-2017 at 07:51 PM.
if you're opposed to environmental regulation... that's a position you can hold.
you can go the ben shapiro route and say, regardless of what the science says, even if its true, it doesn't make economic sense to regulate, and the free market will fix things anyway... or you can go the "i gotta disagree with everything libcucks say" route and oppose regulation because that makes you a traitor to the right, like that asshole bib inglis
you can justify that position a number of ways, and we can argue from there ,but holding on to the scientific fringe to rationalize your view is kinda weak imo. you can separate the science from the policy like shapiro does (although he takes shots at the science all the time, his argument largely rests on the "even if the science is true" hypo)
people used to (and may still do) argue that putting taxes and regulations on the cigarette/tobacco industry is anticapitalist and the market should self regulate. thats a position one can hold. but naturally up until the mid-late 90's, most rationalized their view on that industry by saying the science was uncertain, and that there isn't good enough evidence/study/research to show that nicotine is addicting or that smoking has a strong correlation to a number of illnesses
Wow. Where do I begin? The atmosphere is not a vacuum. All those other variables and feedbacks come into play. Hence the uncertainty.
Last part, just lol. Does my previous post suggest I don't think "climate change" is real? I'm just skeptical about catastrophe. That's all.
lol i didnt mean the atmosphere was in a literal vacuum. its an expression of looking at something in a vacuum
which scientific study has used the word catastrophe that you are skeptical of?
Only read first sentence.
When did you stop beating your wife?
See what I did there?
Great point. Actual scientific papers aren't usually alarmist. That's where the media and politicians come in.
i see what you tried to do there, certainly
the politicians and media that rigorously oppose environmental regulation routinely try to discredit and deny those findings that you dont seem to disagree with. odd.
high percentage of research papers show x. "we shouldn't pass this burdensome legislation because there is still question and debate about x." GOP congressmen flat out deny the very existence of climate change. "hurr durr they used to call it global warming now they call it climate change hurr durr"
Last edited by spurraider21; 01-21-2017 at 09:33 PM.
What findings do I disagree with? Can there be "findings" or "facts" about a future not yet experienced?
Alarmism isn't really in the literature, but here's the kind of that gets shown at climate conferences.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
