First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
35639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

redokami wrote:
republicans aren't hiring certain demographics based solely on that and not if the person is good for the job
we also arent the ones having mass "cry ins" and safe spaces to protect our feelings


....you do know whose President, right?

Fox & Friends *is* his safe space.


14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

redokami wrote:

if, as you say its being tested and re tested and revised, all the time

then why whould I take what is said now as set in stone fact? by 2030 we could be wrong, again

edit plz tell me what 1.7 is, is it like 2 legs a arm and a head of a kid? lol where does that number come from or how


Why? Because as humans, we are able to look at data and evaluate its significance.

Generally, the "global cooling" hypothesis was based on an extremely limited data set which basically saw the spike in temperatures around 1940 and painted a downwards trend line from that data. There is a reason that this wasn't really largely accepted. Yes, you heard right. This was never largely accepted. The media took it up, but actually if you look at the breadth of the peer-reviewed publications from the 1970s, even back then, the dominant hypothesis was "global warming".



Now, the state of climate science has come along way. Back in the '70s, it was still largely in its infancy. We were working with small pools of data without really having the full picture. Climate science since then has been the focus of a lot of research. The data pools we have now are pretty huge, even going so far as to project the temperature record back millions of years.

By simply weighing the value of the evidence, the difference between the "global cooling" hypothesis of the 1970s and today's "global warming" hypothesis should be clear. To even compare the two is a bit ridiculous.

PS: Do you not understand averages? Is that edit a serious question or are you trying to be funny?
21793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

runec wrote:


redokami wrote:
republicans aren't hiring certain demographics based solely on that and not if the person is good for the job
we also arent the ones having mass "cry ins" and safe spaces to protect our feelings


....you do know whose President, right?

Fox & Friends *is* his safe space.




im not talkin bout one guylol


im talking about in general, from college campuses to buisnesses, hiring a black guy just because you need to fill the quota -yes that's a thing still- doesn't mean that guy is right for the job, they will be picked over anoher ethnic person who even is more qualified
id say that's "feeling right"

..id also say that retreating to a safe space on campuses to protect your feeligns....is "feeling right"
21793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

sundin13 wrote:


redokami wrote:

if, as you say its being tested and re tested and revised, all the time

then why whould I take what is said now as set in stone fact? by 2030 we could be wrong, again

edit plz tell me what 1.7 is, is it like 2 legs a arm and a head of a kid? lol where does that number come from or how


.

By simply weighing the value of the evidence, the difference between the "global cooling" hypothesis of the 1970s and today's "global warming" hypothesis should be clear. To even compare the two is a bit ridiculous.

PS: Do you not understand averages? Is that edit a serious question or are you trying to be funny?

im trying to get this "snipping" thing down...lol
first, as its been said its always being revised, until its set in stone, like as well known -and one could argue obvious- that if you drop a apple it will fall, then im not gonna fully believe it


second, it was both, I understand averages but the 1,7 average for...well a kid, doesn't fully make sense to me, so I said exactly as how I imagined it

5226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:



Do you even know what your posting? Smh climate change deniers post random graphs not knowing what they mean and assign their own meaning to it.

They are called Milankovitch cycles, and we aren't in the right cycle. Also you do know about things called asteroids, like when they hit the earth they destabilize the climate? Not to mention the projected increases in temperatures even as shown in the graph you posted is definitely not normal especially from 2050-2100. Like do you have random pictures of climate change graphs saved from conspiracy websites that you just post thinking your gonna BTFO everyone? We actually learn about these things in school and have them explained to us.

Regardless, even if assuming this was natural and it happened normally, sea levels are still rising, and the climate is changing to be more extreme. This is gonna have serious effects on the economy(i.e major coastal areas are gonna get flooded) and it certainly doesn't help to make it even more extreme by pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Ignoring this reality by claiming it isn't real just as a knee jerk reaction to people you don't like is literal autism.



" We actually learn about these things in school and have them explained to us."

Sounds like you were indoctrinated into "believing" anything just because it has the word SCIENCE behind it!

"Somewhere in the world some super smart guy understands this, therefore I will take their word for it. People never lie, especially science people."


"Ignoring this reality by claiming it isn't real just as a knee jerk reaction to people you don't like is literal autism"

Really, you claim to be in accordance with this scientific position and use it to act superior as if YOU were the literal super smart scientist that figured this shit out and could prove it.

Oh and then you go and show how dumb you really are by bastardizing the meaning of Autism. Oh youu!
35639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

redokami wrote:
im not talkin bout one guylol


That one guy is the leader of the entire party at the moment. Also, its not limited to him. Somewhere along the line the GOP shifted to the party of feelings. George "Feel It In My Gut" Bush really got the ball rolling. But the last RNC was really bad in this regard. Facts didn't matter, only feelings.

And while that doesn't excuse overly sensitive college students, it also can't be ignored if you're going to try and criticize said students.
14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

redokami wrote:
first, as its been said its always being revised, until its set in stone, like as well known -and one could argue obvious- that if you drop a apple it will fall, then im not gonna fully believe it

second, it was both, I understand averages but the 1,7 average for...well a kid, doesn't fully make sense to me, so I said exactly as how I imagined it



That is an absolutely ridiculous standard to hold anything in the realm of scientific inquiry. While I won't complain if you hold that standard personally, to use that broken standard to try to influence people, deny evidence or influence policy is tantamount to suicide by willful ignorance. It reminds me of the "just a theory" foolishness that is ever present in discussion of evolution with those who don't quite understand how science works.

Second, it really doesn't sound like you understand averages. Let's say one person has one kid and a second person has two kids. The average amount of kids that this sample had is 1.5. That doesn't mean that they both spit out a kid and a half. It's an average.
1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
^^^ One need not have any background in science to grasp natural selection. Climate change is more complex, and happens to be relevant. Let's call this militant ignorance. Or apex stupidity. Do yourselves a favor and stop trying to educate these people. History will vindicate one side or the other.

There is conjecture that climate change could trigger an ice age. We have gone nearly extinct before, which is why all human lineage can be traced back to a few dozen individuals. All I know for certain is, average snowfall over the last decade is a fraction of that in previous times, at least where I live. And this is a place which relies heavily on winter tourism. Hello, recession.
5134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
The difference between CAGW aka "Climate Change" and AGW aka "not significant human caused warming" is the ECS value.
ECS is a measures of the sensitivity of worldwide climate to a forcing, in this case a doubling of CO2 concentration. If this value is high, that is greater then 3 then the warming rate would likely be dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

According to the IPCC, ~40 years of research have not managed to narrow the range of ECS from 1.5 - 4.5, avg. of 2.5-3.5. Point of fact they recently widened it, admittedly on the low end and have stopped giving an average.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/


My point is, contrary to what the IPCC is saying a plot of peer reviewed studies seem to be showing a disturbing trend in the estimates for ECS.




mxdan 
10928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

runec wrote:

And while that doesn't excuse overly sensitive college students, it also can't be ignored if you're going to try and criticize said students.


ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ME!? I'll HAVE YOU KNO...


33842 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/25/17
i rode my bike all winter which was nice
5134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

CKD-Anime wrote:

i rode my bike all winter which was nice


I feel your avatar frequently captures the essence of your comments

I wonder what avatar would capture mine?
33842 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

jugrnot007 wrote:
I wonder what avatar would capture mine?
I have no idea m8

92 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

amejia0 wrote:


SchlomoShekelberg wrote:



Do you even know what your posting? Smh climate change deniers post random graphs not knowing what they mean and assign their own meaning to it.

They are called Milankovitch cycles, and we aren't in the right cycle. Also you do know about things called asteroids, like when they hit the earth they destabilize the climate? Not to mention the projected increases in temperatures even as shown in the graph you posted is definitely not normal especially from 2050-2100. Like do you have random pictures of climate change graphs saved from conspiracy websites that you just post thinking your gonna BTFO everyone? We actually learn about these things in school and have them explained to us.

Regardless, even if assuming this was natural and it happened normally, sea levels are still rising, and the climate is changing to be more extreme. This is gonna have serious effects on the economy(i.e major coastal areas are gonna get flooded) and it certainly doesn't help to make it even more extreme by pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Ignoring this reality by claiming it isn't real just as a knee jerk reaction to people you don't like is literal autism.



" We actually learn about these things in school and have them explained to us."

Sounds like you were indoctrinated into "believing" anything just because it has the word SCIENCE behind it!

"Somewhere in the world some super smart guy understands this, therefore I will take their word for it. People never lie, especially science people."


"Ignoring this reality by claiming it isn't real just as a knee jerk reaction to people you don't like is literal autism"

Really, you claim to be in accordance with this scientific position and use it to act superior as if YOU were the literal super smart scientist that figured this shit out and could prove it.

Oh and then you go and show how dumb you really are by bastardizing the meaning of Autism. Oh youu!


>your indoctrinated if you believe actual facts and debunk my conspiracy theories
Cannot make this up
23244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17

redokami wrote:

just to throw this out there
why should we believe ppl who said first it was global COOLING -lol- then warming then climate change
even had politicians say that the coasts were supposed to be under water by now
and that by now the world would be10 billion or so
and that we would be having a global food crisis


all this shit was supposed to happen , it hasn't

also is it global cooling or warming? lol


and no I haven't always been a skeptic, its only been the past year once I started looking into things and remembering all of this- besides the al gore part-
hell I used to be your average green earth hippie


edit: also, if the governments were soooo about preserving the earth and shit....especially with taxes and regulations

why the hell aren't water parks regulated id say that's a issue



also, we cant go SOLELY nuclear and solar...we do need coal, oil etc,we need to use ALL of our energy resources, and even when we do its still not gonna be enough in the long run


hell, we aint even there yet technology wise with solar, I cant even find a damn solar power bank that works decently, much less a whole electric grid lol


It's technically both. Climate change refers to the natural cycles Earth goes through. The major issue people seem to be having is that the division between natural and what man caused. It has been shown that as time goes by, or as man has developed, the natural cycles that Earth has, has been switching faster than previously noted. I am not a climate expert, nor do I have any biology/geological background, but from a common physics point of view, the more energy in a system, the faster the particles move, and the more heat is present. We release a bunch of "green house gases" into the atmosphere which traps it, the natural heat from the Sun hits said gas particles causing them to move around faster, which in turn, slowly (or quickly however you want to view it) eroding some of the atmosphere. This allows the rays from the Sun to hit Earth unfiltered during the hotter seasons, making it warmer, and lose the heat during the cooler seasons, making it colder. Hence Global Cooling/Warming.

As a side note, the renewable energy sources do not release particles into the atmosphere, but tends to affect the immediate environment around it. Not sure the lasting repercussions on this, but whatever.
The point of funding greener energy resources is to make them more efficient, so we can switch over to be "completely green". That's the point of Research and Development.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.