U.N. Panel Reaffirms That Climate Change Is “Irreversible”

Cool, now all that survivalist shit I am into isn't so fucking crazy now is it :p
 
Grahamkracka said:
You are correct, it wasn't caused by humans back then. However maybe you should do some research before posting ignorant shit, there is evidence of massive volcanic activity that has never before been seen in human history that released enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (over periods of thousands of years) that fueled sustained greenhouse effects for many thousands of years. This carbon activity also acidified the oceans and killed off many ocean faring species as well (modern ocean acidification is also a big problem that doesn't get as much press as climate change). The current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is happening at a pace that has never been seen before. In pre-historic times, this happened over many many thousands of years. We've managed to do it in like 200. You don't have to be a goddamn expert in thermodynamics and heat transfer to realize what's going on is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Do me a favor, don't be an ass. I'm going to assume I didn't express my self properly or you just didn't get where I was going. maybe i'm not reading your post right too... mis-understandings are common when not speaking face to face.

That was my point. Geological activity including volcanic, have been one of the biggest factors in climate change since.. um.. ever. It is still happening today. It doesn't have to be a massive eruption either.. you got systems of vents pouring volcanic gases into the ocean from deep under sea level from areas we may have never seen before. these volcanic gases also contain things like Sulfur and methane which are also greenhouse gases and from my understanding more potent.

The you point you are making, correct me if i'm wrong; is that humans are pushing it along faster.. which yeah some I would agree. The extent to which especially the past 25(ish) years we would disagree at least in respect to the US and Europe who have cleaned up pretty good. Other nations like China and India are going through what the US did 50 years ago even more so. Instead taxing developed and 'cleaner' nations why not do in China what we did here and help clean them up. Start with the simple notion that people like clean air and water and ignore global climate warming cooling change all together.. everyone likes clean air and water, easier sell. then see where we stand eh?

maybe someone with more knowledge can answer a side question... CFCs apparently being the worst of the bunch of green house gasses since their wide spread use started in the '40s (i think) why are we focusing on carbon so much?

There are also other reasons climate changes too but you mention solar cycles, tidal forces and Galactus people just write you off as a loon :D
 
Grahamkracka said:
You are correct, it wasn't caused by humans back then. However maybe you should do some research before posting ignorant shit, there is evidence of massive volcanic activity that has never before been seen in human history that released enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (over periods of thousands of years) that fueled sustained greenhouse effects for many thousands of years. This carbon activity also acidified the oceans and killed off many ocean faring species as well (modern ocean acidification is also a big problem that doesn't get as much press as climate change). The current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is happening at a pace that has never been seen before. In pre-historic times, this happened over many many thousands of years. We've managed to do it in like 200. You don't have to be a goddamn expert in thermodynamics and heat transfer to realize what's going on is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

So like since I have been around for over 1/4 of this last 200 years you'd think this super dynamic change would at least be something I could identify with, you know, like when I was a kid it wasn't like this... except that when I was a kid it was exactly like this, every day, the same old shit for the last 54 years I have been around. Climate Change is bullshit.
 
redrage said:
not sure if you are aware, you just gave fuel up the 'denier agenda' as you call it. Rapid global temperature increase then was NOT caused by humans... unless we had coal furnaces back then i'm not aware about.
Click to expand...

Wow ... that is some incredibly specious reasoning.
 
lcpiper said:
So like since I have been around for over 1/4 of this last 200 years you'd think this super dynamic change would at least be something I could identify with, you know, like when I was a kid it wasn't like this... except that when I was a kid it was exactly like this, every day, the same old shit for the last 54 years I have been around. Climate Change is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Please understand the difference between localized weather patterns and global temperature averages before calling something bullshit.
 
Draax said:
Wow ... that is some incredibly specious reasoning.
Click to expand...

it was half sarcasm half not (the half not in a previous post).. the have is... apparently i need a sarcasm sign.

oh i'll start using a bunch of smilies

:p
:D
:eek:
:confused:
:(
 
Please understand that I have traveled and worked across a great deal of the world, shall i relate;
Texas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, South Korea, Germany, Iraq no where less then a year. Shove localized up your ass, you don't have enough global data to cover an ant's ass with but you want to say everything has been changing for the last 200 years and I am saying that is bullshit. Sell your crap to someone else, I'm not buying.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
I say it true—there is more scientific evidence for blacks being genetically less intelligent than whites than there is for man-made global warming. The former is rarely touched with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because there are consequences, both professionally and personally. The left has made climate science almost as dangerous to broach. Look how they evoke Nazi imagery akin to Holocaust denial.

So which has more predictive power: the science behind the Bell Curve or the science behind man-made climate change? C'mon you supposed lovers of science, have the courage of your convictions—debate race and IQ with the same gusto and objectivity (hah).

I realize the above will probably outright get this thread closed with lots of boo-hoo racist crying. That's sort of the point.
Click to expand...

Doing great credit to the climate denial "team", you are.
 
It's one year since typhoon Haiyan, or as we call it locally, typhoon Yolanda.

The first half of November last year was simply a deluge of rain. It was one of the coolest in history. Therefore, it's quite obvious that global warming is false!!!

Except, you know, before you get a lot of rain, you have to get a lot of evaporation for the water to form clouds in the first place, so the ocean had to be exceptionally warm to produce record-breaking amount of rain due to record-breaking typhoon wind speeds...
 
entropy13 said:
It's one year since typhoon Haiyan, or as we call it locally, typhoon Yolanda.

The first half of November last year was simply a deluge of rain. It was one of the coolest in history. Therefore, it's quite obvious that global warming is false!!!

Except, you know, before you get a lot of rain, you have to get a lot of evaporation for the water to form clouds in the first place, so the ocean had to be exceptionally warm to produce record-breaking amount of rain due to record-breaking typhoon wind speeds...
Click to expand...

And this is what the deniers can't wrap their heads on. They're always thinking in absolute terms. Heck even in that earlier post which quotes someone mentioning race thinks race is an "absolute". I'm guessing people with American (may be white, may be black) fathers and Filipina mothers simply don't exist.
 
lcpiper said:
Please understand that I have traveled and worked across a great deal of the world, shall i relate;
Texas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, South Korea, Germany, Iraq no where less then a year. Shove localized up your ass, you don't have enough global data to cover an ant's ass with but you want to say everything has been changing for the last 200 years and I am saying that is bullshit. Sell your crap to someone else, I'm not buying.
Click to expand...

You don't need to buy facts for them to be true

Doesn't matter how many places you've traveled to

You're wrong

Sorry
 
just waiting for non-reconstructed data to start being presented so 'creativity' is removed from temperature trend reporting. There's the cherry picked deletion of stations but after a while you start running out of valid stations.
 
you guys are going about renewable energy all wrong.
when people tell me I should do solar because of climate change I tune out.
when they try to force economic action, I really tune out.

when they show me money I can save, my greedy ass fills in the rest.
 
If it's irreversible then can we drop all the BS laws?

Top reasons global warming is BS:
1. The best pro-global warming "evidence" are the Vostok ice cores, which amount to 0.0001 of the earth's history. The climate models of the last 30 years? 0.000000008 of the earth's history. My calculator even gives an error. Tell me again how either of these are supposed to provide statistically significant data?
2. The Vostok ice core data shows that warming occurs 800 years before CO2 increases!!! Did they send the CO2 back in time to destroy mankind lol? Debunked right there!
3. NOAA's GeoCarb III model that measures CO2 levels over hundreds of millions of years was compared to temperature models and shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
4. Fact: the largest animals on the earth lived when CO2 levels were 10x what they are now.
5. They had to change the name from global cooling, to global warming to climate change to make it fit. Only crooked scientists change the hypothesis to fit the data.
6. No one ever explains WHAT or WHEN it will happen if we ignore these pseudo-scientists' advice. That is because their goal is to cause never-ending fear. If a date comes and goes, why should we believe them?

Politicians are just using fear and hatred to manipulate you into gaining power. The Democrats do it through climate change and race-baiting and the Republicans do it through war. Quit being a simpleton and think for yourself.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
5. They had to change the name from global cooling, to global warming to climate change to make it fit. Only crooked scientists change the hypothesis to fit the data.
6. No one ever explains WHAT or WHEN it will happen if we ignore these pseudo-scientists' advice. That is because their goal is to cause never-ending fear. If a date comes and goes, why should we believe them?
Click to expand...
where do you come up with this? first of all, you're just objectively wrong. but even if what you wrote was true and the terms had been changed over the decades, 1. that's not changing a hypothesis and 2. scientists revise hypotheses all the time...what do you mean only crooked scientists change what they're looking at? :confused:

the dates are fairly clear, except they keep getting pushed closer because the impact keeps happening more than we expected. you need to read more sources than [H] news section if you think that we don't have some scary dates predicted.

also, when someone is consistently late to an important event, the response is likely going to be negative. but when someone is consistently early, you don't start telling the person that they don't know how to tell time, right?
 
mope54 said:
where do you come up with this? first of all, you're just objectively wrong. but even if what you wrote was true and the terms had been changed over the decades, 1. that's not changing a hypothesis and 2. scientists revise hypotheses all the time...what do you mean only crooked scientists change what they're looking at? :confused:
Click to expand...

What isn't science is when someone says, "There is no debate." That's not science. No way. You must always be open for revisions. There are scientists and then there are those funding the scientists that want favorable data. The powers that be are the ones who revise marketing terms.
 
the ipcc did this thing where they ask scientists how likely they think (x) is to occur. based off those answers, arbitrary numerical values were assigned as a kind of probability, but they also included some kind of language claiming it doesn't count as probability or some such. misleading at best.

someone showed it to me on paper, i dont remember what its called.
 
the fact that you used arbitrary and probability in the same sentence like that undermines your position

other than that, someone showing you something that you don't remember would otherwise be immensely compelling evidence. keep producing evidence of that caliber and you're sure to convert the fence sitters
 
its not meant as evidence against global warming.
just that the ipcc is not always the best champion for that cause.

my position is not that there is no global warming.
my position is pretty much...tell me what politician i should pay so they can magically fix it.
 
mope54 said:
If you're talking about "groups" of people then you are creating a straw man. If you are talking to specific people and have found that people you personally know are reacting that way, that's a different thing than what you keep stating.
Click to expand...

Oh what the fuck ever.

There's a reason why there's been no major advances in nuclear power in the last 40 years.

And it sure as fuck isn't coming from people advocating nuclear power and nuclear power research.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
So climate scientists and politicians have no skin in the game?
Click to expand...

All of the politicians know they're going to be dead of natural causes long before the 'worst case scenarios' come into play, and I'd imagine most of them think their children's/grandchildren's current level of privilege will shield them from the suffering of the poorer folk. Same with billionaires - even if money starts to lose its value, the people with money will be able to prepare better and far further in advance to ensure they're 'wealthy' in support and materiel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top