I thought it was a pretty well known fact that it's not "global warming", it's "global climate change". Some parts of the Earth are getting warmer while others are getting cooler. Am I crazy or what?

CheddarJackI thought it was a pretty well known fact that it's not "global warming", it's "global climate change". Some parts of the Earth are getting warmer while others are getting cooler. Am I crazy or what?

yep thats right

also, to the guy above that posted the CO2 graph, yes I know CO2 levels are high, but that is not really having a very big effect as you can see from the graph I posted^.

CheddarJackI thought it was a pretty well known fact that it's not "global warming", it's "global climate change". Some parts of the Earth are getting warmer while others are getting cooler. Am I crazy or what?

Half n half, the overall temperature of the earth is rising. The midwest's brutally cold winter was a result of these temperatures weakening the jet stream which typically holds the arctic air far north. Essentially, global warming and global climate change are synonymous. The fact of the matter is that it is happening and if we don't stop it, a shitstorm will ensue, the worst mass extinction of all time was caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, let's just make sure that the killing of all organisms except some bacteria isn't our fault.

BandoleroEconomics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

Alright after reason that I don't agree with you that scince is making up study's for money. but I respect your opinion l, thought you were trying to say we should still pollute because it has nothing to do with climit change.

IDMT_BC024An econ major. What a surprise. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you know as much about ecology as an art history major knows about economics?

And ecology is real, unlike economics.... "Que. for social science babble/ but this is the human world we live in! It's real because it provides us with goods! response."

The world isn't going to be destroyed, but it only takes a few relatively small changes for life to get very, very uncomfortable for the vast majority of humanity.

Of fucking course the theory of global warming is open to testing! It's being tested every day in hundreds of ways by thousands of scientists, using methods that are far more rigorous and accurate than anything that will ever employed by economists.

And we know the effects that past climate cycles have had, from a variety of methods. Again I will never understand why climate change skeptics trumpet that "the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before!" That's what the theory is, to a large degree, based on! That's where the estimations of the effects of a rise in global temperature come from, to say the least.

You missed my point entirely. "Climate scientists" (not ecologists) are trying to impose severe economic policy using inconclusive science as a basis. Which would mean that an economics background is quite applicable, wouldn't you agree? There science is paid for by political interests that are skewed towards receiving a certain outcome. Using cherry-picked data to make convenient conclusions is something that is seen quite ofter in the field of economics as well(more so since the full return of neo-Keynesianism).

This is proven just by the mere name "Climate change". But I thought it was "global warming"? Climate scientists are keen to include data that agrees with their conclusions, and discard all data that refutes it. This is not good science, and the reason people have lost interest. After an overwhelming amount of data suggested that the world was in fact not warming, they just change the name slightly so that they can never be wrong, I mean how can you possibly deny the climate is "changing"?

Now do I think all the research is wrong? No. I think if the research was not so tainted by politics and full-scale efforts to destroy the economic systems of western societies, then it would be much more valid. However, what we have are scientific theories that are treated as gospel by supporters in order to impose economic eco-fascism.

BandoleroYou missed my point entirely. "Climate scientists" (not ecologists) are trying to impose severe economic policy using inconclusive science as a basis. Which would mean that an economics background is quite applicable, wouldn't you agree? There science is paid for by political interests that are skewed towards receiving a certain outcome. Using cherry-picked data to make convenient conclusions is something that is seen quite ofter in the field of economics as well(more so since the full return of neo-Keynesianism).

This is proven just by the mere name "Climate change". But I thought it was "global warming"? Climate scientists are keen to include data that agrees with their conclusions, and discard all data that refutes it. This is not good science, and the reason people have lost interest. After an overwhelming amount of data suggested that the world was in fact not warming, they just change the name slightly so that they can never be wrong, I mean how can you possibly deny the climate is "changing"?

Now do I think all the research is wrong? No. I think if the research was not so tainted by politics and full-scale efforts to destroy the economic systems of western societies, then it would be much more valid. However, what we have are scientific theories that are treated as gospel by supporters in order to impose economic eco-fascism.

I really do think you're blowing it out of proportion, the new study that came out is true the icecaps are now melting, and we've done so much damage there's nothing we can do to fix it.

BandoleroEconomics, which gives me enough background to know that all the proposed solutions by global warming disciples are bullshit.

The Earth is not going to be destroyed, it was here long before we were here and will be here long after we're gone. I don't disagree that carbon pollution is inherently bad, but to claim a natural gas is going to somehow bring about the apocalypse makes you look as ridiculous as those religious nuts proclaiming the rapture.

Is carbon ever so slightly warming the atmosphere? That is very possible. That is not the debate. The debate is what effect this will have, since the Earth has had wide fluctuations in temperature before. And again, global warming is not a "fact", all science is based on theory. Theories are made to be tested, saying that the global warming theory cannot be tested makes you a zealot.

You got me at economics.

My dad's an environmentalist and has written many books and articles for Time and others, he's a credible source, and he thinks that our future is looking dark. It might be too late.

zzzskizzzthere's nothing we can do to fix it.

Then why is it such a huge issue if there's nothing we can do to fix it?

It's all just politics man

The other day I literally watched a commercial about how global warming is real. Like seriously? They're so desperate to convince people that they're right that they make ads on tv? That just shows you how political it is

milk_manThen why is it such a huge issue if there's nothing we can do to fix it?

It's all just politics man

The other day I literally watched a commercial about how global warming is real. Like seriously? They're so desperate to convince people that they're right that they make ads on tv? That just shows you how political it is

Because between now and the 250 years its going to take to make the ocean rise 10ish feet, we probably will be able to do something. You never cease to amaze me.

zzzskizzzBecause between now and the 250 years its going to take to make the ocean rise 10ish feet, we probably will be able to do something. You never cease to amaze me.

Relevant:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

It's so funny how you goys act. You read an article made by scientists and now it's a fact for you. I'm not denying any of the things they say is true, but none of you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about unless you have a degree to back it up.

You goys argue like you study climate temperatures and averages. Is gravity a fact? no, it's a theory, and if you believe other wise you (IMO) are fucking retarded. Just like saying light speed is the fastest possible (lol), because it's actually not.

This site is just full of a bunch of condescending close-minded dick face bitches. We get it, you just watched an awesome dox on how Global Warming if tearing our beloved ozone apart, but that won't stop you from not wearing sun screen in the summer.

Just like how some retards think the moon landing is real, ha, it's a theory. Go back to watching awesome dox of fascinating things you fucking cunts

JavascriptIt's so funny how you goys act. You read an article made by scientists and now it's a fact for you. I'm not denying any of the things they say is true, but none of you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about unless you have a degree to back it up.

You goys argue like you study climate temperatures and averages. Is gravity a fact? no, it's a theory, and if you believe other wise you (IMO) are fucking retarded. Just like saying light speed is the fastest possible (lol), because it's actually not.

This site is just full of a bunch of condescending close-minded dick face bitches. We get it, you just watched an awesome dox on how Global Warming if tearing our beloved ozone apart, but that won't stop you from not wearing sun screen in the summer.

Just like how some retards think the moon landing is real, ha, it's a theory. Go back to watching awesome dox of fascinating things you fucking cunts

milk_man

you think I'm trolling but you're the shittiest member ITT

fuck with all these guys thinking I'm trolling. "lol u mad" bc I'm right? fucking cunts

I love destroying agw alarmists. Will someone please take me on? I'm bored at work.

milk_manRelevant:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

I read two paragraphs of that, that's very good were getting off fuel and moving to renewable energy sources. I don't see what that has to do with stopping the ice caps from melting. I really think that you just don't understand the any of the concepts of science.

JavascriptYou goys argue like you study climate temperatures and averages. Is gravity a fact? no, it's a theory, and if you believe other wise you (IMO) are fucking retarded. Just like saying light speed is the fastest possible (lol), because it's actually not

I don't even know where to start with this post, I find it funny coming from you the guy who made the ADHD thread. First of all I don't think you understand the science definition of theory is, and please tell me how can you go faster than the speed of light?

zzzskizzzI read two paragraphs of that, that's very good were getting off fuel and moving to renewable energy sources. I don't see what that has to do with stopping the ice caps from melting. I really think that you just don't understand the any of the concepts of science.

Lol all it's going to do is raise the price of electricity. And how else would you stop/slow down global warming except by cutting emissions?

milk_manLol all it's going to do is raise the price of electricity. And how else would you stop/slow down global warming except by cutting emissions?

No what it's going to do is force new renewable energy companies to start making more electricity, as there's more of a demand for it. again I don't see what this has to do with the conversation. And cutting down on a emissions isn't going to stop the ice caps form melting, so I still don't see the point you're trying to make.

zzzskizzzNo what it's going to do is force new renewable energy companies to start making more electricity

Which will be more expensive

milk_manWhich will be more expensive

Alright man cool story, it's not over talking about, and I can't really say I'm surprised you can't grasp this concept.

BombogenesisI love destroying agw alarmists. Will someone please take me on? I'm bored at work.

Bump

zzzskizzzAlright man cool story, it's not over talking about, and I can't really say I'm surprised you can't grasp this concept.

You know what powers a lot of the renewable electricity industry?

Government grants, because they can't economically sell their electricity and make enough money to support themselves

zzzskizzzI don't even know where to start with this post, I find it funny coming from you the guy who made the ADHD thread. First of all I don't think you understand the science definition of theory is, and please tell me how can you go faster than the speed of light?

Coming from my father who have a masters in physics. The universe itself travels at a speed, undetermined but it is faster than the speed of light. I think some YouTuber described it well but yeah. And how in the world would a thread relating to ADHD have even the slightest relevance to this?

BombogenesisBump

Bump cuz I want to see you destroy someone.

JavascriptComing from my father who have a masters in physics. The universe itself travels at a speed, undetermined but it is faster than the speed of light. I think some YouTuber described it well but yeah. And how in the world would a thread relating to ADHD have even the slightest relevance to this?

So if I read your post correctly, you don't like people who research stuff on the Internet, or read bullshit scientific studies and take it as fact. Yet you're basing your answer on something your dad said and a YouTube video you can't find?

zzzskizzzSo if I read your post correctly, you don't like people who research stuff on the Internet, or read bullshit scientific studies and take it as fact. Yet you're basing your answer on something your dad said and a YouTube video you can't find?

My dad who has a diploma for studying this, as well as the YouTuber. Calling those studies facts doesn't even make sense, it might confuse you, but not everything on the internet is true.

inb4 how is da utuber real?!? because it's based off of something I've heard from someone who has a degree to back it up...