First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Antarctica may be approaching "unstoppable" collapse.
14830 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/19/17
Blow it up for "science".
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/20/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Wow, did I call that or what?

I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the logical fallacy of acting like non-man made climate change in the past precludes man made climate change today and focus on how bullshit it is to infer that natural climate forcings haven't already been ruled out as causal determinants of the current trends of climate change even though you were just sent an explanation that that was entirely the case.

So once again


Like usual climate change advocates avoid the I.portent questions and focus on providing scary graphs.

OK then. Answer me this: Would global ice levels have dropped without mans interference?

I'm willing to admit we may have sped up the defrost but ice levels have been receding since the last ice age when it was abnormally cold, couldn't this be part of the natural cycle of earth. Earth has been hotter than it is now and its been cooler. Life continued on as normal and it flourished and died all without humans.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/20/17

Rujikin wrote:

Like usual climate change advocates avoid the I.portent questions and focus on providing scary graphs.

OK then. Answer me this: Would global ice levels have dropped without mans interference?

I'm willing to admit we may have sped up the defrost but ice levels have been receding since the last ice age when it was abnormally cold, couldn't this be part of the natural cycle of earth. Earth has been hotter than it is now and its been cooler. Life continued on as normal and it flourished and died all without humans.


"Couldn't this be part of the natural cycle of earth[?]"

Again, cute.

Actually read the links next time.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/19/17
Rujikin has a valid point, Octo. Us not being the sole cause doesn't negate our influence, or anything. That said; it seems to that you and Ruji just don't get along, period, and that this particular topic isn't all that relevant to the dynamic you two have going on.
jl6
469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Florida
Offline
Posted 5/19/17
what about diapers in the landfill come on that f*ked up.
19371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/19/17
From Wikipedia:
Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.


Climate is a change of patterns of meteorological variables, by its very nature Climate is not fixed. The issue is not if Climate Change it is that can we do things to mitigate extreme climate shifts. Changes in behavior and/or create things to change the impact of humans on those Climates (that are changing). We may differ on the level of intervention we desire or need. Do not confuse activity and intervention for a solution to the problem.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/19/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:

Rujikin has a valid point, Octo. Us not being the sole cause doesn't negate our influence, or anything. That said; it seems to that you and Ruji just don't get along, period, and that this particular topic isn't all that relevant to the dynamic you two have going on.



...how bullshit it is to infer that natural climate forcings haven't already been ruled out as causal determinants of the current trends of climate change even though you were just sent an explanation that that was entirely the case.


You're going to have to explain to me how anything I said can be misconstrued as saying we were the sole cause of climate change because the closest thing I could find is the part in quotes up there and it seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is that some climate change is naturally occurring but we only have a climate change problem because of human effects (as shown in those links I posted).
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/20/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:

Rujikin has a valid point, Octo. Us not being the sole cause doesn't negate our influence, or anything. That said; it seems to that you and Ruji just don't get along, period, and that this particular topic isn't all that relevant to the dynamic you two have going on.


Yeah.... Its hard to discuss anything due to that dynamic.


jl6 wrote:

what about diapers in the landfill come on that f*ked up.


Nah bro that's just a shitty mess.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/19/17

octorockandroll wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me how anything I said can be misconstrued as saying we were the sole cause of climate change because the closest thing I could find is the part in quotes up there and it seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is that some climate change is naturally occurring but we only have a climate change problem because of human effects (as shown in those links I posted).


Am I to understand that you two were agruing over semantics, given that only a slight shift in paraphrasing separates that statement rom Ruji's? With how much you were hellbent on skewering most anything Ruji said, it's odd to discover that you attacked what your own belief. Aside from the true cause for arguing being personal, that is.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/19/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me how anything I said can be misconstrued as saying we were the sole cause of climate change because the closest thing I could find is the part in quotes up there and it seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is that some climate change is naturally occurring but we only have a climate change problem because of human effects (as shown in those links I posted).


Am I to understand that you two were agruing over semantics, given that only a slight shift in paraphrasing separates that statement rom Ruji's? With how much you were hellbent on skewering most anything Ruji said, it's odd to discover that you attacked what your own belief. Aside from the true cause for arguing being personal, that is.


Slight shift in paraphrasing my ass. He asked me to show proof that the earth would not be suffering the radical climate change it currently is afflicted to it and I showed him a direct line of such proof. It's not a small difference in vocabulary, it's two opposite points.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/19/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Slight shift in paraphrasing my ass. He asked me to show proof that the earth would not be suffering the radical climate change it currently is afflicted to it and I showed him a direct line of such proof. It's not a small difference in vocabulary, it's two opposite points.

You both agree that humans affect climate change. Degree of blame differs, and I can't tell by how much. The bit about ignoring sources is another story, though your unwillingness to answer his direct questions arguably evens the score. Where you two distinctively veer off is how much faith to put in studies. That's an argument on skepticism, not so much on climate change.

Well, I'm pretty well done here. I suppose my overall message is; this thread is a pointless mess.
378 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / In the Mountains
Offline
Posted 5/19/17
Why fix it? New continent...more resources...
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/19/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Slight shift in paraphrasing my ass. He asked me to show proof that the earth would not be suffering the radical climate change it currently is afflicted to it and I showed him a direct line of such proof. It's not a small difference in vocabulary, it's two opposite points.

You both agree that humans affect climate change. Degree of blame differs, and I can't tell by how much. The bit about ignoring sources is another story, though your unwillingness to answer his direct questions arguably evens the score. Where you two distinctively veer off is how much faith to put in studies. That's an argument on skepticism, not so much on climate change.

Well, I'm pretty well done here. I suppose my overall message is; this thread is a pointless mess.


All the answers to his questions were, as I again have already made clear, explained in the links I posted. You'll forgive me if I don't feel like re-posting the same thing over and over again for someone with a history of ignoring any evidence that conflicts with his original position.
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/19/17 , edited 5/20/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Cardamom_Ginger wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me how anything I said can be misconstrued as saying we were the sole cause of climate change because the closest thing I could find is the part in quotes up there and it seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is that some climate change is naturally occurring but we only have a climate change problem because of human effects (as shown in those links I posted).


Am I to understand that you two were agruing over semantics, given that only a slight shift in paraphrasing separates that statement rom Ruji's? With how much you were hellbent on skewering most anything Ruji said, it's odd to discover that you attacked what your own belief. Aside from the true cause for arguing being personal, that is.


Slight shift in paraphrasing my ass. He asked me to show proof that the earth would not be suffering the radical climate change it currently is afflicted to it and I showed him a direct line of such proof. It's not a small difference in vocabulary, it's two opposite points.


This isn't radical climate change. What was more radical was when the ice dam holding back a giant lake of water in north america broke and the sea level jumped by meters in days, all without humans. I'd say our effect on the surface of the earth has been more radical. Turned entire regions into concrete jungles. Set rivers on fire. Polluted entire groundwater systems. Covering the ocean in a microscopic layer of plastic.

You know even your climate change scientists say that if we cut all CO2 emissions now there is nothing we could do to stop it according to their models. The EPA said that it would cost 100 billion to reduce global temps by .01%.


Cardamom_Ginger wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Slight shift in paraphrasing my ass. He asked me to show proof that the earth would not be suffering the radical climate change it currently is afflicted to it and I showed him a direct line of such proof. It's not a small difference in vocabulary, it's two opposite points.

You both agree that humans affect climate change. Degree of blame differs, and I can't tell by how much. The bit about ignoring sources is another story, though your unwillingness to answer his direct questions arguably evens the score. Where you two distinctively veer off is how much faith to put in studies. That's an argument on skepticism, not so much on climate change.

Well, I'm pretty well done here. I suppose my overall message is; this thread is a pointless mess.


I've been linked that website enough times that I remember it by looks alone... Reading it for the nth time really serves no purpose. Heck I even took a climate change class in college when I was converting from a liberal to a conservative by a climate change professor, I still have his endless handouts. In the end I've lost faith in their models since their predictions never come true and they just keep moving the goal post back. They have been going on about this since the 70's. New York was suppose to have disappeared already.
8832 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Villa Rica, GA
Online
Posted 5/19/17
poor poor Antartica
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.