First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
1888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17
in my apartment in shanghai I am on the 33rd floor and there are days the air is so brown that I cant see the street level or the buildings across the street. Luckily I am in a new building that nearly have direct access to the underground metro same for where I work so technically I don't even have to go outside. If I did on those days I probably would die of a 1920s coal mining lung disease
mxdan 
12372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

Mariox777 wrote:

Scientists were pulling out of that study as soon as they saw their agreement was not what the politicians were claiming.

There still is no science behind man-made global warming. Every study that have been put out have had parts that had false data in it. Which is not surprising since one of the head scientists that is pushing climate change has publicly told scientists it is fine to make up data to get people to believe in climate change.

The reason is is a political argument is because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT. And it is the people who are pushing climate change that are the people who are getting rich by pushing it. No one seems to complain about THEM getting rich off of tax payer dollars. :p


Your average climate scientist doesn't stand to get rich by it. Your flawed reasoning is that climate change hype is manufactured by companies that stand to get rich off of it. But hype was created by independent studies coming to the same conclusions across multiple countries.

The manufacturing happens when there is real concern and we need a movement to actually move. In cases like these government has value and duty to enact.

Science doesn't care about your political opinion. It exists because of people look towards what the evidence is telling them without bias. Without it Darwin wouldn't of looked beyond accepted theories towards what kind of evidence hinted towards evolution.

People like you seem utterly incapable of looking at anything objectively that doesn't confirm your biases.

First it was 'climate change is a lie', then it was 'climate change isn't man made', now it is 'climate change from humans is minimal'. It seems you'll do anything to fight accepted science simply because Liberals flocked to it first and any support for them at all is absolutely unacceptable.

The Republican party is full of man babies who care more about feeling right then actually being right. Trump is just the next step in a line of absolute degradation of a party.
Ejanss 
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

gsm642 wrote:

in my apartment in shanghai I am on the 33rd floor and there are days the air is so brown that I cant see the street level or the buildings across the street. Luckily I am in a new building that nearly have direct access to the underground metro same for where I work so technically I don't even have to go outside. If I did on those days I probably would die of a 1920s coal mining lung disease


You could always go to the movies.

(Translation: We HATE your country for going to see Transformers 5. Please stop it. )
mxdan 
12372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17

Ejanss wrote:

(Translation: We HATE your country for going to see Transformers 5. Please stop it. )


It amazes me that a franchise with the last 4 renditions scoring less then a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes can still be a thing.

I mean at this point I'm impressed that they haven't accidentally made a good film.
1662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/25/17
It is not easy to notice the environmental problems in the developed nations due to envorinmental regulations and industries that can provide human neccesary. It is more easy to observe the effect of polution and environmental destruction in the developing nations. The pro-libertarian organizations, like NAFTA and IMF, are forcing the third world governments into allow criminal activities from foreign business in the third world nations; pollution and environmental destruction can go unchecked even when it destroy the indigenous communities who then need to seek refugee in the Western world.

For example, an indigenous tribe in Latin America depend on an unpolluted river for their living. When that river get polluted, those tribe lost their only source of clean water. Those people bath in the polluted water and they complain of skin rash and other skin disease. They drink the water from the river so they suffer from stomach problems and diarrhea. They wash their clothes in the river and their clothes quickly get dissolved due to the pollution.
8102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

This whole thing has turned into a religion.

It doesn't really matter what a scientist comes up with or how many holes are in their hypothesis. one side has taken their leap of faith and will always believe we small humans actually have the power to change the weather on this planet... by accident.

This issue is less about science and more about politics and blind faith.

21982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

Rujikin wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.


Or, ya know, have people stop breeding... 8 billion can't be good...


The Americas and Europe both have sustainable populations that do not overly stress the environment. It's Asia and, in the future, Africa thats the issue. They have more people than their land can support and you can see the effects.



are you kidding? the west is having 1 kid per couple on average, you need at least 2 more ppl are using birth control/other forms of contrceptives, -don't even get me started on abortions- and also actually not having sex as much, he younger generation at least, our population is actually not sustainable,


with your second point I do agree though
it is estimated that Nigeria is gonna have a bigger population than America by 2050

the west sure aint the problem when it comes to "over population"
21982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17
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
16480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

GardanTheBlue wrote:


This whole thing has turned into a religion.

It doesn't really matter what a scientist comes up with or how many holes are in their hypothesis. one side has taken their leap of faith and will always believe we small humans actually have the power to change the weather on this planet... by accident.

This issue is less about science and more about politics and blind faith.



I've never understood the implication that humans are insignificant. We have pretty much reshaped the majority of the earth's land surface already and significantly impacted just about every ecosystem. "We small humans" could destroy the vast majority of life on earth if we really wanted to.


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


"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2]"
runec 
42062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

redokami wrote:
are you kidding? the west is having 1 kid per couple on average, you need at least 2 more ppl are using birth control/other forms of contrceptives, -don't even get me started on abortions- and also actually not having sex as much, he younger generation at least, our population is actually not sustainable,


The average is around 1.7ish for the "west" but birthrates have collectively fallen for the world in general for a while now. Industrialization, advancing technology and control over our own reproduction is naturally lowering it. If you live in a developed nation you don't need 5+ kids anymore to work the farm in case 2 or 3 die from the plague or something.

Developing nations have had and will have a population spike for a while as their cultures adjust to lower mortality rates, better longevity and increased access to resources. All we can do as developed nations is help ease the transition so they don't repeat our mistakes.



redokami wrote
the west sure aint the problem when it comes to "over population"


Africa is a problem, but Asia is turning around pretty sharply. There's been a steady decline across the board in Asia. China actually has a lower birth rate than the US now. They're actually heading for a crash of sorts ( Japan in particular is staring down the barrel of this problem ).



redokami wrote:
why should we believe ppl who said first it was global COOLING -lol- then warming then climate change


Because science isn't politics. Don't conflate the two. Science continues to revise itself as new tools and new information are obtained. The idea of global cooling arose in the 1970s. Arguing that you can't believe climate science in 2017 because of what it was in the 1970s is like arguing you can't believe in satellite phones because people once said rotary phones were the cutting edge of technology. ( If you don't know what that is, Google it, but don't tell me you are as I feel old enough already bringing them up. >.> )

Science is an ongoing process that constantly tests, retests and revises itself. It's not a politician. You can't argue against it based on something it said on the campaign trail in the 90s.



GardanTheBlue wrote:

This whole thing has turned into a religion.

It doesn't really matter what a scientist comes up with or how many holes are in their hypothesis. one side has taken their leap of faith and will always believe we small humans actually have the power to change the weather on this planet... by accident.

This issue is less about science and more about politics and blind faith.


We small humans could destroy this planet 5 times over in the space of 3 hours. Its only our collective interest to not die in a fiery hellflame that stops us. However, we are also terminally shortsighted and can't seem to apply our collective interest in not dying beyond our immediate future.

It being an issue of politics and/or faith is an American problem. It got interjected into the politics and like practically every else somehow became a sharply partisan issue.





6027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17
Here's a letter from Dr. Lindzen's former colleagues where they completely contradict him. When choosing between 1 former MIT professor or 22 current MIT professors I think I'll listen to the 22:

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
21982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

runec wrote:


redokami wrote:
are you kidding? the west is having 1 kid per couple on average, you need at least 2 more ppl are using birth control/other forms of contrceptives, -don't even get me started on abortions- and also actually not having sex as much, he younger generation at least, our population is actually not sustainable,



redokami wrote:
why should we believe ppl who said first it was global COOLING -lol- then warming then climate change


Because science isn't politics. Don't conflate the two. Science continues to revise itself as new tools and new information are obtained. The idea of global cooling arose in the 1970s. Arguing that you can't believe climate science in 2017 because of what it was in the 1970s is like arguing you can't believe in satellite phones because people once said rotary phones were the cutting edge of technology. ( If you don't know what that is, Google it, but don't tell me you are as I feel old enough already bringing them up. >.> )

Science is an ongoing process that constantly tests, retests and revises itself. It's not a politician. You can't argue against it based on something it said on the campaign trail in the 90s.



GardanTheBlue wrote:

This whole thing has turned into a religion.

It doesn't really matter what a scientist comes up with or how many holes are in their hypothesis. one side has taken their leap of faith and will always believe we small humans actually have the power to change the weather on this planet... by accident.

This issue is less about science and more about politics and blind faith.


We small humans could destroy this planet 5 times over in the space of 3 hours. Its only our collective interest to not die in a fiery hellflame that stops us. However, we are also terminally shortsighted and can't seem to apply our collective interest in not dying beyond our immediate future.

It being an issue of politics and/or faith is an American problem. It got interjected into the politics and like practically every else somehow became a sharply partisan issue.







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
5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

gsm642 wrote:

if its not caused by humans than how come the entire middle east will have to be relocated soon and than india and Africa. They will have to be relocated because its so hot that the middle east will no longer be able to support human live and we are now talking about it happening within my lifetime. Not to mention the islands in the south pacific that have to be relocated because they are now under a foot of water that 20 years ago was fine so all them people are refugees and lost there all there land.


You are back with this again? You didn't even bother to change your argument, you just copy pasted that shit on here.
runec 
42062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

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


It gets more accurate the more data we have and the more we can test and experiment.

Smoking use to be doctor approved, but you wouldn't bet your lungs on the medical science turning out wrong 10 years from now would you?

It's an average. You can't come up with an accurate rate that's a whole number when you're trying to compare millions of woman having anywhere from 1 to Duggar kids.



21982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 6/25/17 , edited 6/26/17

mxdan wrote:


Mariox777 wrote:

Scientists were pulling out of that study as soon as they saw their agreement was not what the politicians were claiming.

There still is no science behind man-made global warming. Every study that have been put out have had parts that had false data in it. Which is not surprising since one of the head scientists that is pushing climate change has publicly told scientists it is fine to make up data to get people to believe in climate change.

The reason is is a political argument is because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT. And it is the people who are pushing climate change that are the people who are getting rich by pushing it. No one seems to complain about THEM getting rich off of tax payer dollars. :p


Your average climate scientist doesn't stand to get rich by it. Your flawed reasoning is that climate change hype is manufactured by companies that stand to get rich off of it. But hype was created by independent studies coming to the same conclusions across multiple countries.

The manufacturing happens when there is real concern and we need a movement to actually move. In cases like these government has value and duty to enact.


The Republican party is full of man babies who care more about feeling right then actually being right. Trump is just the next step in a line of absolute degradation of a party.


I beg to differ

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
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.