flashoverride
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 496
Closed and Oh no its more than just political.
Do you have some kind of citation for this? Because I see no evidence of this claim.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Closed and Oh no its more than just political.
I just thought I'd let everyone in this thread know that the climate has been changing for millions of years, with or without human intervention.
Hence, climate change is real.
It is NOT radical to suppose that, like during the 60's global cooling, peak oil and peak food scares, these "scientists" (windbags) are full of hot air.
The radical position is that it has been changing dramatically since the industrial revolution (which the facts do NOT support), and that we can radically alter it by taxing companies or countries based on their CO2 output.
And man just started pumping 40,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere in the last 50 years. Yes folks, 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. I can't imagine that would have any kind of effect on anything...
And this is when the real agenda, which is wealth redistribution between nations shows it's ugly head
And man just started pumping 40,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere in the last 50 years. Yes folks, 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. I can't imagine that would have any kind of effect on anything...
You disprove your man-made global warming by citing the facts.
40 Billion tons of CO2 per year in the years between the years of 1998 and 2013 equated to ZERO change in global temperature according to the United Nations own report that was released in 2013.
You really need to put aside the tin-foil hat and do some more investigation before spewing (pun intended) wild theories spoon fed to you by politicians.
I am sorry, I could not get past the fact that the US apparently owes China and India... Yeah, I can get that we have been an industrialized nation longer and have done more damage in past years, but the comment that the US has done nothing to stem the tide is just ridiculous, as ridiculous as nations such as China that completely scoff at the rest of the world in fixing climate issues.
I'll take the 40 billion tons of CO2 argument and the facts laid out by 99% of the world's climate scientists over your lame "weather is always changing" argument any day of the week. If you want citations, just use google. It's free!
I'll take the 40 billion tons of CO2 argument and the facts laid out by 99% of the world's climate scientists over your lame "weather is always changing" argument any day of the week. If you want citations, just use google. It's free!
More power to you. I know when to quit arguing with a pigeon.
And for the math challenged, that's 80 trillion pounds of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere annually. And that doesn't even count the millions of tons of methane which is an even worse greenhouse gas that is being released into the atmosphere by man.
Who gives a fuck how long the weather has been changing. For every action, there is an opposite reaction and releasing 80 trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is going to come back to bite us in the ass sooner than later.
How about a temperature that doesn't cause permafrost that's been here tens of thousands of years to be melting within the past century?But please, tell me what the optimal surface temperature of the earth is and what target we should hold it at. Given that we can't even agree on a common telecommunications standard globally, I'd wager that ideal range of temperatures is going to vary quite wildly.
how about a giant cup of fuck you to the rest of the 8th world shitholes. such bullshit that it's even a thought.
The Earth has not warmed at all in the last 30 years, the polar ice caps are getting larger and people are living well in to their 70s and 80s.+ a trillion more.
Anyone who believes a single line of bull from these climate "scientists", or any government agency or agent regarding the world climate deserves nothing short of a lobotomy.
Suckers.
total number of deaths to nuclear accidents according to the WHO... 18....
Are you aware of the fact that almost all plants must have CO2 to live? The more the better.
I'll go ahead and ask the question: 80 trillion pounds as compared to what? What is the total weight of the atmosphere?
80 trillion pounds sounds like an awful lot, but without context it's a meaningless number. It would be better represented if we could establish a baseline without humans, and then measure the difference, and then determine that difference's possible impacts on global climate. Of course, global climate is and has been shifting for millions of years, so we'd have to establish a baseline for that, establish an expected rate and direction of change, and then the delta from expected to observed would need to be factor isolated.
But please, tell me what the optimal surface temperature of the earth is and what target we should hold it at. Given that we can't even agree on a common telecommunications standard globally, I'd wager that ideal range of temperatures is going to vary quite wildly.
I dont like taking sides in any important issue until I put in at least several dozen hours of reading and note-taking, but the consensus position has a lot of corroborating data. I don't intend to do that reading now, but I'll still err on the side of the precautionary principle and be mindful of my carbon footprint because I believe its the most sensible position to take at the individual level.
As a rebuttal to the anti-climate-change position linked here: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php (click the pdf to read the report)
I've seen these:
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
Most of the time I see rebuttals attacking the credentials or the website or some other such nonsense. These links at least attempt to provide some actual data as well. It'd be nice if I could budget the time to reference and fact-check it all...
The wikipedia pages on climate change, global warming, ocean acidification, carbon cycle, permafrost cycle: seem to provide useful references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost_carbon_cycle
The key to the claim that a large portion of climate change is anthropogenic seems to be the rate at which things are changing. The rate at which the ocean is acidifying, for instance, is reportedly unnaturally high... and such a rate has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction... I hope that doesnt soon lead to the extinction of our phytoplankton, which seem to provide a large portion of our ocean's "carbon-sink." Thats one of a number of positive feedback loops which are possibly feeding into a runaway global disaster.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1221 - The reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink
- Though its not all bleak news it appears that the Southern Ocean is currently doing better than expected.
The deniers may claim that these sources are untrustworthy or lacking significance, and this possibility is why I try not to assume a position without due diligence (because I have disagreed and continue to disagree with some consensus positions). So far, however, the consensus position is looking fairly convincing. It may be that the models are a bit off, and do not provide fully accurate estimates, but that's expected. What is more difficult to dispute, however, is the data. There are more measurements in more locations being gathered than ever before, and even if I ignore the conclusions drawn by others, the correlations are there the rates of change (of more than 1 purportedly relevant marker) appear to be unnatural. A mega volcano has not erupted. All of the permafrost has not melted at once. What happened?
Thread-relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Other links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
On the other hand, if anyone has any more convincing data and analysis suggesting that the primary contributor to climate change is not anthropogenic, Id genuinely like to read it. I have not put in the work to make a satisfactory assessment.
The Most conservative estimate of deaths from the Chernobyl accident alone, are 4000 deaths.
One study places the number of radiation related deaths at 985,000. that's a metric shit-ton more than 18.
I'm firmly in the Nuke camp, but denying that there has been some truly stupendous fuckups in the past is as bad as saying that humans have had zero impact on climate.
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq (I-131 eq).
Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."
Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.
I dont like taking sides in any important issue until I put in at least several dozen hours of reading and note-taking, but the consensus position has a lot of corroborating data. I don't intend to do that reading now, but I'll still err on the side of the precautionary principle and be mindful of my carbon footprint because I believe its the most sensible position to take at the individual level.
As a rebuttal to the anti-climate-change position linked here: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php (click the pdf to read the report)
I've seen these:
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
Most of the time I see rebuttals attacking the credentials or the website or some other such nonsense. These links at least attempt to provide some actual data as well. It'd be nice if I could budget the time to reference and fact-check it all...
The wikipedia pages on climate change, global warming, ocean acidification, carbon cycle, permafrost cycle: seem to provide useful references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost_carbon_cycle
The key to the claim that a large portion of climate change is anthropogenic seems to be the rate at which things are changing. The rate at which the ocean is acidifying, for instance, is reportedly unnaturally high... and such a rate has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction... I hope that doesnt soon lead to the extinction of our phytoplankton, which seem to provide a large portion of our ocean's "carbon-sink." Thats one of a number of positive feedback loops which are possibly feeding into a runaway global disaster.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1221 - The reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink
- Though its not all bleak news it appears that the Southern Ocean is currently doing better than expected.
The deniers may claim that these sources are untrustworthy or lacking significance, and this possibility is why I try not to assume a position without due diligence (because I have disagreed and continue to disagree with some consensus positions). So far, however, the consensus position is looking fairly convincing. It may be that the models are a bit off, and do not provide fully accurate estimates, but that's expected. What is more difficult to dispute, however, is the data. There are more measurements in more locations being gathered than ever before, and even if I ignore the conclusions drawn by others, the correlations are there the rates of change (of more than 1 purportedly relevant marker) appear to be unnatural. A mega volcano has not erupted. All of the permafrost has not melted at once. What happened?
Thread-relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Other links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
On the other hand, if anyone has any more convincing data and analysis suggesting that the primary contributor to climate change is not anthropogenic, Id genuinely like to read it. I have not put in the work to make a satisfactory assessment.
Blind faith... take it for what its worth.
In a fox hole its priceless.
I didn't intend to paint you as evil and I don't own a flame thrower... yet.
As for religion there is more than one on this planet.
People are killing each other over it. That is moronic.
Don't see people killing each other the Weather Forecast, iPads, pics of Pluto, heart medicines or treatments for various diseases.
But Fuck science when it says something I dont like.
Can't say America greed imported millions of slaves to work the land. Now you guys are crying when you are becoming a minority America, the land you stole from the first inhabitants. Hypocrites, if you want to keep your culture, you should not invade so many foreign lands. Can't say I feel bad for America.