June 4, 2020
22 Guests and 2 Members Online

Please consider Sign Uping
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Sign Up

Sign Up | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_TopicIcon
I don't have a candidate, so convince me to vote for yours... without mentioning other candidates.
September 13, 2016
10:36 pm
Old Mr Dangerous
Old Mr Dangerous
Member
Forum Posts: 7753
5390
Whoops Received: 2695
Whoops Given: 2279
Member Since:
March 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

JC said
So not to be a grammar nazi.  But hypotheses cannot be “proven,” they are supported, rejected/failed to be rejected, etc.  Proofs are for mathematics.  :)  

Like really though, I know it’s just a word and no one on here probably even thought about it or meant it all like that, but I do feel that it is an important distinction to make.    

I feel like nothing is ever proven. My brother and I used to argue over things like this. I said nothing is 100% fact, and he responded that he was looking at the sky, and the sky is blue. I told him that I agree, but everyone sees hues a bit differently. Also, to a blind person, how can they be sure that this truth exists? How can someone who can’t taste know that your recipe deserves an award? The thing I loved about him is that while he much preferred the art of debate over me (he was more intelligent in many ways and more comletetive.. I would get impatient and throw fists like an ape), he would still agree with a conclusion if it made sense to him eventually. Many people are incapable of this. They see “seeing things from a different perspective and reaching a new view” as losing in some way. Fuck that. If you can show me a better way for something, I’m going to try it out… anyway, I had a teenaged theory that there are more drugs than just mind-altering substances, such as plants, chemicals, spices, gases, etc…

My theory was that even food gets us high. He argued this with me for at least a half hour. Finally, he got quiet and did his trademark chin-scratching, and said “you may have a point there.”

I don’t mean food as a drug from an addiction standpoint, but that food literally changes the way you think. This could be due to many physiological, neurological and physical changes, and is, but also I believe food can step outside of the realm of mood alternative to possible spiritual areas. Although once we go there, it becomes an entirely new debate.

Anyway, I guess my moral of the night is that “it is not weak to change or even merely admitting to understanding someone else’s theories”. 

September 13, 2016
10:40 pm
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Old Mr Dangerous said
Nah, Bill Nye is cool. I applaud his temperament when debating Creationism. He doesn’t seem to get overly touchy, yet you can imagine he is frustrated at times… also, he is respectful and doesn’t talk down to those that probably should be talked down to.

I thought his debate against creationists was good just because I believed in what he said.

I am not with him, though, on environmental issues. He has absolutely no credentials in environmental science. In fact, he is not a scientist. He is an actor.

Yes he does have a science degree … a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. Oh, but what about his 6 doctorate degrees in various scientific disciplines? Every single one of those is an “honorary” degree.

Bill Nye has never published a peer-reviewed paper or study on any subject, which is something that most real scientists do. He doesn’t work in any scientific field and he hasn’t studied science at any level. He learned engineering at a bachelor degree level. He, therefore, is not a scientist and is barely an engineer. So why is he used as an “expert” for the whole climate change debate. Because he is a celebrity and people think that if you look dorky and wear a bow tie you must be smart. 

And even Neil Degrasse Tyson is in the same boat. He is a celebrity and a role model. Not a scientist.

Whoop whoop Psyral Infection :

Old Mr Dangerous, JC
Yeah.gif
September 13, 2016
11:00 pm
Old Mr Dangerous
Old Mr Dangerous
Member
Forum Posts: 7753
5390
Whoops Received: 2695
Whoops Given: 2279
Member Since:
March 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh

Psyral Infection said

Old Mr Dangerous said
Nah, Bill Nye is cool. I applaud his temperament when debating Creationism. He doesn’t seem to get overly touchy, yet you can imagine he is frustrated at times… also, he is respectful and doesn’t talk down to those that probably should be talked down to.

I thought his debate against creationists was good just because I believed in what he said.

I am not with him, though, on environmental issues. He has absolutely no credentials in environmental science. In fact, he is not a scientist. He is an actor.

Yes he does have a science degree … a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. Oh, but what about his 6 doctorate degrees in various scientific disciplines? Every single one of those is an “honorary” degree.

Bill Nye has never published a peer-reviewed paper or study on any subject, which is something that most real scientists do. He doesn’t work in any scientific field and he hasn’t studied science at any level. He learned engineering at a bachelor degree level. He, therefore, is not a scientist and is barely an engineer. So why is he used as an “expert” for the whole climate change debate. Because he is a celebrity and people think that if you look dorky and wear a bow tie you must be smart. 

And even Neil Degrasse Tyson is in the same boat. He is a celebrity and a role model. Not a scientist. 

Contrary on the dorky bow tie chic… I think it makes someone look insane. See: Reubens, Paul lol

I understand his status. I don’t follow any of his environmental beliefs or (lack of?) studies. I just know he is an intelligent guy, and earnest. Once again, his temperament is to be applauded. Someone like Bill O’Reilly, an intelligent man, as well, is a horrible debater. To me. However, for his core audience and for his ratings, he is spectacular. He appeals to certain people, Neil Tyson to others. Funnily enough, we all enjoy watching our nemesis as well. It helps to renew our opinions, usually, in a rage filled, self serving fashion. Maybe I will be won over by my rivals of opinion one day, who knows.

Global warming is something that I don’t get nutty about. My insignificant view is that the Earth is ultimately stronger than us, and the variancies and events that happen are just too much to decipher. Do humans play a part in altering Earth at all? Of course. Stupid fuckers would think otherwise. I don’t possess the understanding to determine with any confidence if we are the largest source of global warming, but you just have to open to the idea of greener living, for lack of a better term. I’m not a vegetarian, but it is true that if we as a species adopted a mostly vegetarian lifestyle, our water depletion would almost cease. Livestock provisions are the main cause of that. Just some extra curricular shit I researched while in college. 

September 14, 2016
12:32 am
JC
JC
Member
Forum Posts: 544
806
Whoops Received: 403
Whoops Given: 534
Member Since:
July 6, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Old Mr Dangerous said

 The thing I loved about him is that while he much preferred the art of debate over me (he was more intelligent in many ways and more comletetive.. I would get impatient and throw fists like an ape), he would still agree with a conclusion if it made sense to him eventually. Many people are incapable of this. They see “seeing things from a different perspective and reaching a new view” as losing in some way. Fuck that. 

I don’t mean food as a drug from an addiction standpoint, but that food literally changes the way you think.
  

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes- “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”   Your brother sounds like he was really cool.

You should watch this video-    It’s a speech by a professor of psychology & neuroscience & molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics who says some things that you may be interested in.  

@old-mr-dangerous 

Whoop whoop JC :

Old Mr Dangerous
September 14, 2016
1:22 am
King Lucem Ferre
King Lucem Ferre
Member
Forum Posts: 8811
4136
Whoops Received: 2068
Whoops Given: 1178
Member Since:
September 18, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Isn’t Neil Degrasse Tyson an astrophysicist? He is an actual scientist. Granted not a meteorologist but he is a scientist. He’s also in cosmology which I assume takes at least a little bit of climate science.

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer not a scientist. But I’m sure his job requires a certain understanding of science.

What I don’t get is if they are just flat out lying what would they gain from it? Neither of them work in a field that gets funded to research global warming. Neil does space shit and Bill builds space shit. Wouldn’t it be the climate researchers that gain something from it?

Myles Allen is a climate scientist and believes global warming is because of humans. He thinks it’s a threat but thinks that we have enough time to take a much more economic approach to reducing the C02. He feels that our methods on controlling climate change is much more dangerous than global warming is.

Kevin Anderson is also a climate scientist that believes global warming is because of humans.

At the end of the day, every scientist I’m aware of believes in global warming and thinks it’s real. Have yet to meet one that doesn’t.

Whoop whoop King Lucem Ferre :

Old Mr Dangerous
September 14, 2016
4:22 am
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You are right. Neil Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist. But he is now a celebrity and no longer does Astrophysics. Bill Nye is not a scientist and never was. He never studied science. He uses it the same way I use science and everyone who uses a phone or computer uses science. His scientific degree is a Bachelor in Science. You know who also has a Bachelor’s in Science? Sarah Palin. .. Yeah, I know, a very poor argument there. I am pretty sure that any worthwhile debate teacher would give me an ‘F’ for using such a blatant argumentative fallacy. But yes, her degree, in communications and journalism from University of Idaho is listed on their website as a Science degree. But I had to do it because I think the comparison is humorous. Bill Nye is not an expert on anything science related, especially not climate science. Now Neil Degrasse Tyson, on the other hand, has at least a real phD but no longer does any science. There is a difference in a “scientist” and a “scientism-ist”. Both buys are proponents of scientism. I am too. But like them, I am not a scientist. I don’t do peer reviewed scientific articles. I don’t conduct any scientific research. Neither do they.

About the climate change thing. I have to get to work so I will respond when I get there. The whole “most scientists agree” that the media has been throwing around for over a decade is very inaccurately misrepresented. The information first came from the Zimmerman/Doran survey and represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise. Yet the survey did not have questions whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem, even though the survey results in terms of human impact on the environment has been used by Nasa, Al Gore, Obama, Bill Nye, and so many others. Nor did the survey include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of possible natural causes of climate change as opposed to human impact factors.

More in an hour or so.

[edit]

Don’t get me wrong, I like some of the stuff Bill Nye does. Especially his push for more funding of science education. I liked his debate with the creationist. It was some classic stuff.
Q: What would cause you to change your mind?
Ken Ham: Nothing.
Bill Nye: Evidence.

[/edit]

Yeah.gif
September 14, 2016
7:17 am
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ok, I am back. To begin with, I am NOT a climate change denier. The climate is and has been changing since the earth was formed. There is no scientist that would disagree with that. I am skeptical of the results that the media has been showing for the past decade or two. I too believe, as most scientist do, that humans do have an effect on climate change. Yes, humans do affect the climate. But to what degree? 

Now to use the most cited numbers:
The 97% of the world’s scientists agree that human activity is responsible for global warming is one of the most sited “facts” that many people keep perpetuating in the media. Where did this come from? John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible. David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) along with 3 other researchers reviewed the same papers as Cook and found only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing that opinion, and not 97.1 percent had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. They even found that climate scientists (to be specific: Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner) who protested the article Cook published stating that he completely ignored or misrepresented their work. But people as influential as President Obama and even NASA uses that exact figure. President Obama, tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” 

The figures all look really impressive. You can easily find surveys with a quick google that show everywhere from 82% to 98% of all scientists believing in human caused (anthropogenic) climate change. But many surveys are not of climate scientists but just any scientist. And even with that, a real scientist would never say something that exists on the earth has 0 effect on the climate.

So what degree of effect do humans have vs non-anthropogenic effects?

Let’s start with some facts:
* Carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion, is a greenhouse gas, which traps solar radiation in the atmosphere.
* As a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have increased by about one degree centigrade since 1880
* The climate is changing at an unprecedented rate currently than it did before the industrial revolution.

Those are data driven facts and are agreed upon by both sides of the argument. Now the question is are we the cause of this? I will show a previous post since I do not feel like re-doing it all. Ignore the political aspects in it since this is not about politics and I don’t want to derail this thread from the original posters intent. :P

Psyral Infection said
Yes there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing. And yes, our CO2 emissions are higher than before… But climate changing far more rapidly? Not too sure about that one.

If you look at just recent data, which is often stated, it looks pretty bad. Actually, really bad indeed!

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.pngImage Enlarger

But when you look at historical data that goes back much farther, then we are hardly “warming” more than ever before.

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gifImage Enlarger

In fact this is not even the fastest or highest warming trend. And guess what, humans had nothing to do with the previous ones. We weren’t even around for most of them. Do we really think we are so self important that we have such an effect on the planet? Or that we can change what is naturally going to happen as it has happened many times over? We did not start the warming trend, and we definitely are not going to stop it. The data that the proponents of climate change like to cite is a narrow scope of what is happening in local time, not broad spectrum. The whole purpose is to slow down newly industrialized nations to mitigate product competition. It’s all about bottom line. The environment is the convenient excuse to feed to the public so that they get behind global legislation that prevents threats to current industrialized nation’s gross national product. Nothing else.

Sure, I am behind things that lessen our growing CO2 emissions, but only because it leads to better ways to harness energy and get away from limited “scarcity driven” fossil fuels. But I do not think we can change anything about climate change. It is cyclic and deals with things we have absolutely no control over.

11 year and 206 year cycles of solar variability.
21,000 year cycles of Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun.
41,000 year cycles of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit.
100,000 year cycles in variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit

Can we change solar variability? Can we change the tilt and elliptical nature of our orbit? Can we change the wobble in the earth’s orbit? Can we change the variations in the shape of our orbit?

It is those things that sum up to and match the data of real long term climate change. And we are in one of those natural cyclic increases. We have been long before the industrial revolution even started. We didn’t start it and we sure as hell can’t stop it.

Yeah.gif
September 14, 2016
8:24 am
scruffy
scruffy
Moderator
Forum Posts: 11447
7062
Whoops Received: 3531
Whoops Given: 3145
Member Since:
May 22, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Psyral Infection said   
Let’s start with some facts:    
* As a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have increased by about one degree centigrade since 1880    

the issue i have with this fact is not so much whether one single gas has caused this increase by itself, nor if it can be relied upon as properly standardized data prior to whenever the hell various aspects were standardized [many still arent, im sure]; although, im not convinced of either of those two things… 

 

no, my question is:  was it really, really cold in the nineteenth century? 

cuz if not, the surface water shoulda mostly boiled off a while ago.  wed be at like 150c by now. 

 

that chart shows a spread of about point eight degrees over about 130 years.  lil bit smaller than a degree per year. 

  awfully paranoid, arent you?   

September 14, 2016
8:52 am
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah. Statistics can suffer from the same problem that extreme interogation does. You torture numbers enough, they will eventually tell you exactly what you want to hear. :P

Yeah.gif
September 14, 2016
8:59 am
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

scruffy said

Psyral Infection said   
Let’s start with some facts:    
* As a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have increased by about one degree centigrade since 1880    

…no, my question is:  was it really, really cold in the nineteenth century? 

cuz if not, the surface water shoulda mostly boiled off a while ago.  wed be at like 150c by now.   
 
that chart shows a spread of about point eight degrees over about 130 years.  lil bit smaller than a degree per year.   

I think it is saying that it increased by 1 degree C since 1800. Not 1 degree per year.

Yeah.gif
September 14, 2016
9:07 am
scruffy
scruffy
Moderator
Forum Posts: 11447
7062
Whoops Received: 3531
Whoops Given: 3145
Member Since:
May 22, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

fuck, id swear that read, ‘per year’.  fine, disregard. 

im probably just high. 

 

… you didnt edit that shit, did you…? 

nah…  probably im just high… 

Whoop whoop scruffy :

Old Mr Dangerous

  awfully paranoid, arent you?   

September 14, 2016
9:20 am
Guest
Guest
Member
Forum Posts: 3050
1180
Whoops Received: 590
Whoops Given: 102
Member Since:
April 15, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Whoop whoop Guest :

OCJ_Brendan
September 14, 2016
9:43 am
King Lucem Ferre
King Lucem Ferre
Member
Forum Posts: 8811
4136
Whoops Received: 2068
Whoops Given: 1178
Member Since:
September 18, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

But NASA says that the CO2 is rising at a much higher rate than it ever has before. Are you saying that Nasa is lying? Look at that scary up swing!

 

[Image Can Not Be Found]

September 14, 2016
10:27 am
Psyral Infection
Psyral Infection
#ModBot
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3916
2198
Whoops Received: 1099
Whoops Given: 1189
Member Since:
February 15, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

King Lucem Ferre said
But NASA says that the CO2 is rising at a much higher rate than it ever has before. Are you saying that Nasa is lying? Look at that scary up swing!

 

[Image Can Not Be Found]  

Of course they lie :

Image Enlarger

Actually, I am not a believer the moon landing being faked. Never really looked into it so I just take their word for it.

Yeah.gif
September 14, 2016
11:21 am
krunk
krunk
America
Member
Forum Posts: 5948
4998
Whoops Received: 2499
Whoops Given: 0
Member Since:
May 4, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

King Lucem Ferre said  
At the end of the day, every scientist I’m aware of believes in global warming and thinks it’s real. Have yet to meet one that doesn’t.  

Meet Randall Carlson. He brings empirical evidence of “climate change,” not “global warming” in the form of evaluating ice core samples, and concludes “we’re in the infancy of understanding the climate of this planet.” THE ICE AGE IS COMING! 

YouTube Video Joe Rogan Experience #606 – Randall Carlson

scruffy said 
 
no, my question is:  was it really, really cold in the nineteenth century? 
 

According to Carlson, until around the middle 19th century we experienced the “Little Ice Age” which “The NASA Earth Observatory notes (as) three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.”

source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

krunk.gif

September 14, 2016
11:31 am
krunk
krunk
America
Member
Forum Posts: 5948
4998
Whoops Received: 2499
Whoops Given: 0
Member Since:
May 4, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Back to candidates, I love this show.

WeekendatHillarys.jpgImage Enlarger

krunk.gif

September 14, 2016
1:08 pm
Noah Fence
Noah Fence
Member
Forum Posts: 2962
2902
Whoops Received: 1451
Whoops Given: 1602
Member Since:
July 28, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Psyral Infection said
Ok, I am back. To begin with, I am NOT a climate change denier. The climate is and has been changing since the earth was formed. There is no scientist that would disagree with that. I am skeptical of the results that the media has been showing for the past decade or two. I too believe, as most scientist do, that humans do have an effect on climate change. Yes, humans do affect the climate. But to what degree? 

Now to use the most cited numbers:
The 97% of the world’s scientists agree that human activity is responsible for global warming is one of the most sited “facts” that many people keep perpetuating in the media. Where did this come from? John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible. David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) along with 3 other researchers reviewed the same papers as Cook and found only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing that opinion, and not 97.1 percent had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. They even found that climate scientists (to be specific: Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner) who protested the article Cook published stating that he completely ignored or misrepresented their work. But people as influential as President Obama and even NASA uses that exact figure. President Obama, tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” 

The figures all look really impressive. You can easily find surveys with a quick google that show everywhere from 82% to 98% of all scientists believing in human caused (anthropogenic) climate change. But many surveys are not of climate scientists but just any scientist. And even with that, a real scientist would never say something that exists on the earth has 0 effect on the climate.

So what degree of effect do humans have vs non-anthropogenic effects?

Let’s start with some facts:
* Carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion, is a greenhouse gas, which traps solar radiation in the atmosphere.
* As a result of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have increased by about one degree centigrade since 1880
* The climate is changing at an unprecedented rate currently than it did before the industrial revolution.

Those are data driven facts and are agreed upon by both sides of the argument. Now the question is are we the cause of this? I will show a previous post since I do not feel like re-doing it all. Ignore the political aspects in it since this is not about politics and I don’t want to derail this thread from the original posters intent. :P

Psyral Infection said
Yes there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing. And yes, our CO2 emissions are higher than before… But climate changing far more rapidly? Not too sure about that one.

If you look at just recent data, which is often stated, it looks pretty bad. Actually, really bad indeed!

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.pngImage Enlarger

But when you look at historical data that goes back much farther, then we are hardly “warming” more than ever before.

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gifImage Enlarger

In fact this is not even the fastest or highest warming trend. And guess what, humans had nothing to do with the previous ones. We weren’t even around for most of them. Do we really think we are so self important that we have such an effect on the planet? Or that we can change what is naturally going to happen as it has happened many times over? We did not start the warming trend, and we definitely are not going to stop it. The data that the proponents of climate change like to cite is a narrow scope of what is happening in local time, not broad spectrum. The whole purpose is to slow down newly industrialized nations to mitigate product competition. It’s all about bottom line. The environment is the convenient excuse to feed to the public so that they get behind global legislation that prevents threats to current industrialized nation’s gross national product. Nothing else.

Sure, I am behind things that lessen our growing CO2 emissions, but only because it leads to better ways to harness energy and get away from limited “scarcity driven” fossil fuels. But I do not think we can change anything about climate change. It is cyclic and deals with things we have absolutely no control over.

11 year and 206 year cycles of solar variability.
21,000 year cycles of Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun.
41,000 year cycles of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit.
100,000 year cycles in variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit

Can we change solar variability? Can we change the tilt and elliptical nature of our orbit? Can we change the wobble in the earth’s orbit? Can we change the variations in the shape of our orbit?

It is those things that sum up to and match the data of real long term climate change. And we are in one of those natural cyclic increases. We have been long before the industrial revolution even started. We didn’t start it and we sure as hell can’t stop it.

  

The problem is that we can find catalysts for the other changes and here we are ourselves the catalyst for this change.

The rhetoric like “are we so self important that we think we can change the environment” is meant to make you think of your own impact on the environment but no other species in the history of the world has done what wee have. 

It’s foolish to look at what we know for a fact: we are putting out more co2 in the last hundred years or so than we have in our existence while simultaneously removing plant life at an alarming rate. Could other things cause climate change? Sure. As demonstrated, there have been other causes. But that is a distraction from the problem at hand. The problem at hand is how can we slow or stop it so that we can continue to survive. 

There are a lot of ideas on that. Burning more fossil fuels, continued deforestation, and praying is the GOP solution and at best it is insignificant. At worst it is harmful.

The best solutions I have seen to the actual problem is that we should actively do something. Painting the roofs of our houses and businesses white, shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, etc suggests that we can stop the increase in temperature. If there are other driving forces outside of our control, at the very least we are not adding to it. 

That one degree isn’t really the issue. We are trying to prevent an escalation of several degrees which will result in much more than the unstable weather patterns we have had. Rising coast lines, significant changes in weather cycles, and several degree shift in temperature are NOTHING compared to what another 100 years of staying the could bring. 

We aren’t at the point of no return yet. But we need to start finding solutions and stop with the “are we so self important” rhetoric. 

The climate is changing. We are using too many fossil fuels. Other drastic changes in climate have resulted in mass extinction. We don’t need this one to be our extinction and we have the tools and knowledge to slow and possibly prevent it. 

If you really believed that all lives matter we wouldn't need to say black lives matter

September 14, 2016
2:50 pm
krunk
krunk
America
Member
Forum Posts: 5948
4998
Whoops Received: 2499
Whoops Given: 0
Member Since:
May 4, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Humans are self-important if we think we can dictate this planet’s climate to fit our agendas; my evidence is mile-thick ice sheets during the previous (and likely future) ice ages. Western mainstream media says carbon emissions are mostly responsible for climate change, but that may be extremely shortsighted. Carlson’s ice-core data from the video above shows quick, drastic climate changes in pre-industrial times. Blaming carbon emissions might just be the First World’s strategy to knock out potential industrial competitors from Second World countries like China, etc. Bottom-line agendas of First World corporations seem more likely to lie than the scientific method. For you deaf motherfuckers bent on saving the planet, good luck with that. I’ll be partying with the catastrophists who know better than to expect anything, especially the ability to tame this dirtball. Now to bump a sane man yet again:

YouTube Video George Carlin – Saving the Planet 

krunk.gif

September 14, 2016
3:28 pm
scruffy
scruffy
Moderator
Forum Posts: 11447
7062
Whoops Received: 3531
Whoops Given: 3145
Member Since:
May 22, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

krunkazphuk said  
Humans are self-important     

pretty much covers it all. 

 

and by ‘all’, i mean, ya know…  everything. 

  awfully paranoid, arent you?   

September 14, 2016
5:17 pm
Noah Fence
Noah Fence
Member
Forum Posts: 2962
2902
Whoops Received: 1451
Whoops Given: 1602
Member Since:
July 28, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

lol this just in, according to great minds like krunk, deafness now means “accepting the reality of consequences to our actions” but excludes “listening to only one, repeatedly debunked scientist”.

If you really believed that all lives matter we wouldn't need to say black lives matter

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 591

Currently Online: Chubanka33, Chuckieboy
25 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

The Warlock: 11368

King Lucem Ferre: 8811

Old Mr Dangerous: 7753

OCJ_Brendan: 6148

krunk: 5948

patjoyce: 4891

Top Whooped Members:

scruffy: 3531

Old Mr Dangerous: 2695

krunk: 2499

Drunkalo: 2354

King Lucem Ferre: 2068

The Warlock: 1773

Forum Stats:

Groups: 6

Forums: 28

Topics: 11197

Posts: 228024

Newest Members:

krystlepontes, carrie_the_carnie, moonraker, androxene9, ultrarev2, vitalityketo96

Moderators: GanjaGoblin: 2759, Psyral Infection: 3916, bozodklown: 295, scruffy: 11447, PunkRockJuggalo: 6559, Pigg: 6179

Administrators: admin: 0, ScottieD: 838