Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » The Great Global Warming Swindle…
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 138
  2. Page 3 of 5
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  9. 5
  11. Last

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle…

post 1506918081 06-02-2017, 02:43 PM
-
#61
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By G0S9G⏩
I guess I should have added, "for the data that exists". Doesnt make it any less true because we have never SEEN the data from a billion years ago. We have data going back 500 million years andthe Earth has never increased in temperature at such a quick rate over such a small period of time before.
You can't prove that.

I don't even think they sample the data from ice cores at anything less than 100 year increments. That alone is more than 5 million data points.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506918951 06-02-2017, 02:49 PM
-
#62
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By seanb1979⏩
I agree many academics have their heads up their asses, but what we're arguing for is ruining the air, earth and water needed to sustain life.Does it surprise you that studies that go against it are almost entirely funded by gas and oil?Why should we not be striving for better efficiency and more cost effective solutions that can also sustain the biosphere for longer? Do so many people really want the world to have an atmosphere like Beijing or LA?
You do realize that frac'ing has reduced CO2 emissions considerably? My former company actually developed the first working electrical frac spread. Companies have no issue being environmentally friendly as long as it isn't going to run them out of business. Heck, if you show them it can be cheaper ... they're going to do it.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506920731 06-02-2017, 03:04 PM
-
#63
  1. datclownbaby
  2. do i even diet
  1. datclownbaby
  2. do i even diet
  3. Join Date: May 2012
  4. Posts: 4,934
  5. Rep Power: 7199
Is co2 even real?

Are you guys even real?

I'm not sure what is RL anymore
clownbaby has arrived
post 1506927551 06-02-2017, 04:02 PM
-
#64
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By seanb1979⏩
Why should we not be striving for better efficiency and more cost effective solutions that can also sustain the biosphere for longer? Do so many people really want the world to have an atmosphere like Beijing or LA?
I see what you mean brah. You're right that Beijing type environments aren't great. But when I read headlines like: "Climate change: $4trillioncarbon tax is needed to save humanity from global warming", it makes me have questions considering that previous predictions have been wrong before.
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
I'm convinced the whole climate change thing is being funded by rich globalists that want to redistribute power and wealth with middle class tax payer money. I have yet to come across any other reasonable explanation.
When you hear one economist propose a $4 trillion tax, it does make you wonder where that's all gonna go.
Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506935321 06-02-2017, 05:10 PM
-
#65
  1. Evlve
  2. Registered User
  1. Evlve
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 2,026
  6. Rep Power: 8770
Originally Posted By thigoonar⏩
Well I never said "pollute the earth" at all. I just shared a documentary featuring numerous climate scientists who believe other factors such as the sun may have a greater impact on climate change than we do. Considering the sun is so many times larger than earth, is it plausible that solar activity could have an effect? Just watch the documentary first because it does throw up legitimate questions.
Solar energy does have an effect on warming yes. Energy in = energy out always. One of my teachers believed that the sun was entirely responsible for the normal ebb and flow of the earth warming/cooling. Makes sense. I don't have time for the documentary. I like documentaries but they are almost always one sided, tailored for share value, and often times give people a false idea of how much they know about a subject. People have spent lifetimes getting us to where we are now. Very smart, creative people that have sacrificed a lot so that you and I have the technology to be able to stream those documentaries on our devices. You can't expect to know everything after an hour long one sided video. Good for getting your foot in the door and questions are always great, but lately it's been leading to a whole lot of manipulation from ignorant people trying to make a buck. Just my .02
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
Ive never met a single person (liberal or conservative) that thinks polluting the air is a good thing. The idea that you're going to cost developed nations 100 Trillion for an "at best guess" 0.3F temperature drop by 2100 is what pisses people off.

How about every single oil, natural gas, and coal company that countries allow to operate (due to corruption in most cases) with little to no regulations. Just because they arent coming out and saying it doesn't mean a bunch of people haven't looked at the chart and chosen a few billion vs destroying the air. I'm not saying we could get entirely away from it right now, but we have renewable technology now. Nor am I saying people are bad for working for them - have to survive and reach the top somehow. Solar power isn't the best, wind farms aren't the best, and hydrodynamics fall short, but the only way to keep developing those so that one day we can, as a global species operate off renewable resources, is to invest in it. Just like everything else

The science behind all of this is hugely questionable. All of the most recognized models point to little correlations between CO2 and temperature. Both have been much higher and extremely varied in the past loooong before the industrial revolution. If you google global warming the vast majority of charts you'll find from the mainstream media show time frames that only date back 200 years. When you look at the last 500 million years the perspective changes drastically and it becomes quite clear that we are still in an ice age.

**** the temperature argument. There are whole host of things to worry about and temperature shouldn't be in the discussion for a game over scenario. How about the fact that neither you nor I can breathe the air if CO2 levels keep rising like they have been. We aren't the only animals affected either. Water becomes more acidic, and coral reefs cannot repair/rebuild which ends up killing all the creatures that survive because of them, which ends up starving out the larger animals, and well you know how the food chain works. When you look at the 500 million charts and you say meh no biggy CO2 levels were wayyyy higher 30 million years ago not to mention 200 million the second thing you should do is say to yourself "wait....how long have humans been around?" Well there's some error there but in current form I read 200,000 years with ancestors at around 6 million... Look at the chart again (see below) and you might go... Holy **** its higher than its been in human history. If that doesn't frighten you then your still pretending that the earth gives a flying **** about whether or not we as a species survives here. It doesn't. Asteroids don't, super volcanoes don't, and the sun doesn't either so in order to survive we have to be a little bit smarter as a species and realize that money is only good if we're all alive to enjoy it....maybe we should be spending it first on **** to try and keep us alive on this floating rock.



The feedback in the models the scientist keep putting out also keep getting revised over and over. Apparently ... what you come up with in a laboratory and computer doesn't always translate well to an open system (the Earth) ... who'd of thought <eye roll>. Quantum computers are in their infancy so i doubt we have the computing power to calculate the infinite amount of variables that play a roll in Earths climate. Idiots on the weather channel can't even get a 3 day forecast right and we're to believe climatologist can predict climate with any reasonable accuracy?

youre right. Scientists don't have it down. If they did. This wouldn't be a discussion. I think everyone can agree they have the best shot at figuring it out though. Praying doesn't work. Tripping our balls off in a forest didn't work. Let's give science a shot; it seems to be giving us a lot of luxury and supplying a lot of people with information that wouldn't have it otherwise. You can't criticize scientists for reconfiguring and adjusting models to fit reality better. That would be like me telling you that you should know exactly how to work out - what routine, programming, how many sets, reps, compound vs isolation, diet, rest, supplementation, and everything else that goes into lifting figured out. You should have that dialed in perfectly by now and have your dream bod lifting dream weights in dream conditioning. You don't do you? Maybe you do, but I doubt it, and you should also be able to tell me and everyone else how to get our dream **** since you have it all worked out. That's not how it works though...that's why we're in a community together...that's why we share new studies and info with each other. Do we work out now like people did in the 60s? No. Why? Cause we learned. Scientists are learning. It costs money. It's an up industry just like fitness. There's bro science and **** tarts in it that mess it up like everything else but It's a worthy investment. Long winded responses suck. TLDR
Responses in bold.
post 1506944951 06-02-2017, 07:05 PM
-
#66
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By Evlve⏩
youre right. Scientists don't have it down. If they did. This wouldn't be a discussion. I think everyone can agree they have the best shot at figuring it out though. Praying doesn't work. Tripping our balls off in a forest didn't work. Let's give science a shot; it seems to be giving us a lot of luxury and supplying a lot of people with information that wouldn't have it otherwise. You can't criticize scientists for reconfiguring and adjusting models to fit reality better. That would be like me telling you that you should know exactly how to work out - what routine, programming, how many sets, reps, compound vs isolation, diet, rest, supplementation, and everything else that goes into lifting figured out. You should have that dialed in perfectly by now and have your dream bod lifting dream weights in dream conditioning. You don't do you? Maybe you do, but I doubt it, and you should also be able to tell me and everyone else how to get our dream **** since you have it all worked out. That's not how it works though...that's why we're in a community together...that's why we share new studies and info with each other. Do we work out now like people did in the 60s? No. Why? Cause we learned. Scientists are learning. It costs money. It's an up industry just like fitness. There's bro science and **** tarts in it that mess it up like everything else but It's a worthy investment. Long winded responses suck. TLDR
The only problem with the global warming / climate change debate is that they treat it like a witch hunt. If you're not in line with what they're pushing then you're a "climate change denier" and burned at the stake. Most people act like the theories are unquestionable fact.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506975981 06-03-2017, 03:47 AM
-
#67
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
The only problem with the global warming / climate change debate is that they treat it like a witch hunt. If you're not in line with what they're pushing then you're a "climate change denier" and burned at the stake. Most people act like the theories are unquestionable fact.
This. It's like questioning these things is equal to blasphemy. But that's what science is about, asking questions when things that were predicted do not come true.
Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506976751 06-03-2017, 04:10 AM
-
#68
  1. Barbellasaurus
  2. Banned
  1. Barbellasaurus
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Age: 37
  5. Posts: 1,899
  6. Rep Power: 0
So how many people realise part of the Paris deal was redistributing wealth from the US to Iran? I'm guessing Obama told them to include that clause and he'd be all in.
post 1506976811 06-03-2017, 04:12 AM
-
#69
  1. KyleAaron
  2. husband, father, trainer
  1. KyleAaron
  2. husband, father, trainer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. Posts: 10,042
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By thigoonar⏩
This might trigger some people, but the scientific basis of the man-made global warming theory is questionable.
Yawn.
post 1506976891 06-03-2017, 04:13 AM
-
#70
  1. thugonomics
  2. Registered User
  1. thugonomics
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2010
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 1,668
  6. Rep Power: 7192
The left / globalists make it painfully obvious when something is a scam / lie to the people by their response. If you don't believe 100% what they say, you are automatically evil / bigot / racist / anti-environment. There is no in between. I have never seen a group of people refuse to accept that their virtue signaling opinion can possibly be wrong.

Any person who flipped out and is in a safe space right now never read the Paris Accord or has any idea what it does. People's responses are equal to reading the book title, and that being enough information for them to make a decision.

The Paris Accord is just a ponzi scheme to get the US to offer trillions of dollars to redistribute wealth to 3rd world countries. BTW, the treaty is utterly vague and has NO PLAN on how to actually reduce emissions. The plan is literally the US paying 3rd world countries to not pollute. On the list of contributions, the US of course has to give the most money, while also being required to reduce emissions. Meanwhile, China and India, who have more emissions than the rest of the world combined, don't have to reduce any emissions for 13 years. 13 YEARS. Utter scam to completely screw America out of trillions, weaken us economically, while simultaneously helping China.

Oh, did I mention everything is voluntary? There is no penalty for not following the treaty.

Complete and utter joke. I automatically lose respect for anyone who possibly supports this and just assume they aren't capable of thinking for themselves.
post 1506977051 06-03-2017, 04:17 AM
-
#71
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By KyleAaron⏩
Yawn.
Did you watch the documentary? Did you read any of the points made in the OP and my responses ITT?

You don't have to get emotional brah. Questioning scientific theories does not equal blasphemy.



Edit: These are some of the things I talk about ITT.
Originally Posted By thigoonar⏩
I never claimed to know more than climate scientists. I'm saying, there areactual climate scientiststhat question the real impact of man-made CO2 emissions. Isn't science about asking questions?

Also, some climate scientists have made claims that turned to be clearly inaccurate. For example -

What scientists said would happen:
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm

What actually happened:
Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654

Isn't that concerning to you?
Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506977101 06-03-2017, 04:18 AM
-
#72
  1. wickedman
  2. Registered User
  1. wickedman
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 30,900
  6. Rep Power: 79002
Pretty sure 98% of the people who don't have a problem with the Paris Agreement getting canceled is because we see that it really doesn't do **** for us and **** for the environment - not because we deny global warming exists. Herp derp, China and India might lower emissions in like 13 years, and they can tell us to **** off regardless of what happens, win-win! Lets have the US give out money/tech/adjust our infrastructure while these 3rd world countries keep dumping toxins in the ocean and deforesting every square inch of their land easily undoing any advancement we make here. I guess I am a cynic, but I really don't trust them to fulfill their obligations when they have zero repercussions, and I don't trust large amounts of money being funneled through foreign governments from us and actually ending up where it is supposed to.

I'm more convinced nuclear war will kill us all before global warming, but regardless, let's take our money and give it to American green companies to come up with solutions, then we can spread it around to the various equally or more corrupt governments of the world. Trump already said he'd be willing to renegotiate (you know, actually have some kind of negotiated goals and penalties for not achieving them, rather than India having it written down that they will "try to do something"), and shocker, these countries that were getting ready to line their pockets with our money said hell no.

**** the Paris Agreement. Naturally the liberals would find a way to spin it into some kind of disaster, because they are a bunch of alarmist cucks.
#FreeCryptoBandit
post 1506978311 06-03-2017, 05:07 AM
-
#73
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Interesting video by the founder of Greenpeace on this topic:

Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506978671 06-03-2017, 05:22 AM
-
#74
  1. thecheezman
  2. Registered User
  1. thecheezman
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2004
  4. Location: CT
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 3,895
  7. Rep Power: 2541
Im not 100% convinced that we humans are the lead cause of global warming, but if its going to get us to clean up the environment as a whole I can stand with it. Besides air pollution we have a huge problem with dumping pollution into our water and exploiting land for profit.

I think the best thing for our race would be a severe population decrease.
post 1506978991 06-03-2017, 05:31 AM
-
#75
  1. moosik85
  2. Registered User
  1. moosik85
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2011
  4. Posts: 14,890
  5. Rep Power: 81638
Originally Posted By Vexidi⏩
Low population agrarian societies are the only sustainable systems where humans can keep a balance between providing needs and protecting the environment around them. Our technological advancement is what will eventually be our downfall so don't put much faith in science to solve our problems. Obviously no one wants to accept the fact and instead they push harder for more industrialization and modernization thereby speeding up the process. Humans are extremely short-sighted. They're in awe of guys like Elon Musk but he's the kind of motherfuker that's slowly killing us all.
Elon musk is a cuck ***ot. He's rich because leftist lib ***s try virtue signalling to other lib ***s and pour money into his company and government subsidies.
Plant the trees in whose shade your grandchildren will play
post 1506979301 06-03-2017, 05:40 AM
-
#76
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By thecheezman⏩
Im not 100% convinced that we humans are the lead cause of global warming, but if its going to get us to clean up the environment as a whole I can stand with it.
Some climate scientists in the documentary in the original post are saying the same thing. Very interesting.
Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506979521 06-03-2017, 05:45 AM
-
#77
  1. Barbellasaurus
  2. Banned
  1. Barbellasaurus
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2017
  4. Age: 37
  5. Posts: 1,899
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By thecheezman⏩
Im not 100% convinced that we humans are the lead cause of global warming, but if its going to get us to clean up the environment as a whole I can stand with it. Besides air pollution we have a huge problem with dumping pollution into our water and exploiting land for profit.

I think the best thing for our race would be a severe population decrease.
a reasonable approach to the issue would gain almost the entire population's support. a reasonable approach is not possible when these people want as much money as fast as possible. if this is real, the very people who proclaim to be in full support of it are the same who have hampered our ability to properly tackle the issue with their greed, egos and alarmist tactics causing much of the population to completely dismiss the whole thing as a farce. good luck getting these people back on board if it becomes necessary in the future and it really is proven that we have caused a potential dramatic shift.
post 1506980321 06-03-2017, 06:10 AM
-
#78
  1. chapz
  2. Registered User
  1. chapz
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 29
  6. Posts: 1,136
  7. Rep Power: 1115
quoting the time magazine? is that even a accredited source? HELL NO, it's like getting my science and tech updates from the daily mail. Come back with multiple articles out of accredited journals if you want to build any kind of credible argument ffs.
post 1506980451 06-03-2017, 06:15 AM
-
#79
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By thugonomics⏩
The left / globalists make it painfully obvious when something is a scam / lie to the people by their response. If you don't believe 100% what they say, you are automatically evil / bigot / racist / anti-environment. There is no in between. I have never seen a group of people refuse to accept that their virtue signaling opinion can possibly be wrong.

Any person who flipped out and is in a safe space right now never read the Paris Accord or has any idea what it does. People's responses are equal to reading the book title, and that being enough information for them to make a decision.

The Paris Accord is just a ponzi scheme to get the US to offer trillions of dollars to redistribute wealth to 3rd world countries. BTW, the treaty is utterly vague and has NO PLAN on how to actually reduce emissions. The plan is literally the US paying 3rd world countries to not pollute. On the list of contributions, the US of course has to give the most money, while also being required to reduce emissions. Meanwhile, China and India, who have more emissions than the rest of the world combined, don't have to reduce any emissions for 13 years. 13 YEARS. Utter scam to completely screw America out of trillions, weaken us economically, while simultaneously helping China.

Oh, did I mention everything is voluntary? There is no penalty for not following the treaty.

Complete and utter joke. I automatically lose respect for anyone who possibly supports this and just assume they aren't capable of thinking for themselves.
I was under the impression that the reduction requirements were voluntary (except Obama signed into law special requirements for us?) for all nations, but the financial obligations (mostly the west... and mostly the USA) were not.

But 100 trillion to maybe ... just maybe reduce global temperature by 0.3 degrees is just laughable. Whats worse is the cost analysis has all been done by outside institutions because the UN and the people behind this garbage wont release their info.
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506980591 06-03-2017, 06:21 AM
-
#80
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By thecheezman⏩
Im not 100% convinced that we humans are the lead cause of global warming, but if its going to get us to clean up the environment as a whole I can stand with it. Besides air pollution we have a huge problem with dumping pollution into our water and exploiting land for profit.

I think the best thing for our race would be a severe population decrease.
Best thing for our race is for big government and all the people that want big government to f-off. I love Elon Musk for most of what he's done ... but ... how is he going to be for massive government bureaucracy and things like the Paris Agreement when that same bureaucracy was trying to regulate his electric cars out of existence?
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506980721 06-03-2017, 06:26 AM
-
#81
  1. deltpecx
  2. Grandpa Yoda
  1. deltpecx
  2. Grandpa Yoda
  3. Join Date: Aug 2008
  4. Posts: 25,182
  5. Rep Power: 74063
Originally Posted By thigoonar⏩
So much so in the early 1970s, scientists were making ice age predictions:


Brb, Time Magazine June 1974 article: Another Ice Age?
http://content.time.com/time/magazin...944914,00.html
So true. I'm old enough to remember that being pushed back then.
They were also telling us, in the seventies, when we had gas 'shortages' that the earth would rub our of oil by the mid 1990's.


In the 1300's the earth's climate entered a cold period that lasted until the 1850's.
It was called The Little Ice Age.
We are still warming, naturally, from that little ice age.
The earth's climate was warmer in the 900's-1,000's when the vikings were in Greenland.
They farmed there.
No planes, no cars, no planes back then yet the earth's temperature was warmer...

Man made climate change is nothing more than a way to control people's lives.

Oh yeah one more thing to ponder;
There were far less people populating the earth back then exhaling CO2.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.


1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
post 1506980931 06-03-2017, 06:31 AM
-
#82
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
quoting the time magazine? is that even a reputable source? HELL NO, it's like getting my science and tech updates from the daily mail. Come back with multiple articles out of accredited journals if you want to build any kind of credible argument ffs.
The reason why I quoted Time magazine was to illustrate the predictions being made in the early 1970's about a possible ice age scenario.

I also included in the first post an interview featuring Professor Willi Dansgaard from the University of Copenhagen from the 1970's when he talked about a possible "ice age scenario". I just find it interesting.

Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506981341 06-03-2017, 06:45 AM
-
#83
  1. deltpecx
  2. Grandpa Yoda
  1. deltpecx
  2. Grandpa Yoda
  3. Join Date: Aug 2008
  4. Posts: 25,182
  5. Rep Power: 74063
Originally Posted By chapz⏩
quoting the time magazine? is that even a reputable source? HELL NO, it's like getting my science and tech updates from the daily mail. Come back with multiple articles out of accredited journals if you want to build any kind of credible argument ffs.
Back then it was a reputable source.
She approached with her hand extended,. I slowly stepped back. "No" she said. "I just want to shake your hand. You're amazingly gorgeous." As she walked by me she copped a biceps feel.


1st Place Masters Over 60 Bodybuilding 2014
post 1506982971 06-03-2017, 07:26 AM
-
#84
  1. Ugliestincel
  2. Registered User
  1. Ugliestincel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2017
  4. Age: 32
  5. Posts: 15
  6. Rep Power: 0
The levels of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at an all time high, we can measure this from samples from ice cores. And they are severely higher, almost 3x as much, a spike which started after the industrial revolution and has really went up in the past century.
If you think that's a coincidence in not sure what to say to you...

There's a direct correlation between temperature and levels of greenhouse gases in the air, and it makes logical sense that greenhouse gases trap heat. Therefore if the Earth is storing more solar energy, the temperature will increase, it's simple energy balance.

Obviously the Earth goes through natural periods of warmig and cooling, but to completely ignore human impact on the enviornment is straight up foolish. Remember that you live on this planet too and there's nothing cool about denying climate change just to fit in with conservative idealogy.
post 1506983971 06-03-2017, 07:45 AM
-
#85
  1. dannyg1217
  2. Registered User
  1. dannyg1217
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2007
  4. Location: Greeley, Colorado, United States
  5. Age: 45
  6. Posts: 14,987
  7. Rep Power: 62602
Originally Posted By Jax05⏩
Well...you're right and wrong. Once something has been invented it can't be un-invented. Everyone understands the shortcomings of industrialization, but no one has a realistic sustainable solution.
that's the funny thing, we have solutions, if we diverted those carbon tax dollars to invest in more nuclear energy we could eventually replace coal in the power industry, however the same envirocucks will bitch and complain about this too
Yellow fever crew
High test Manlet crew
EE master race

5'7" @ 175
PRs, B325 S405 D405
post 1506984251 06-03-2017, 07:49 AM
-
#86
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  1. thigoonar
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2012
  4. Posts: 3,659
  5. Rep Power: 9006
Originally Posted By Ugliestincel⏩
The levels of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at an all time high, we can measure this from samples from ice cores. And they are severely higher, almost 3x as much, a spike which started after the industrial revolution and has really went up in the past century.
If you think that's a coincidence in not sure what to say to you...

There's a direct correlation between temperature and levels of greenhouse gases in the air, and it makes logical sense that greenhouse gases trap heat. Therefore if the Earth is storing more solar energy, the temperature will increase, it's simple energy balance.

Obviously the Earth goes through natural periods of warmig and cooling, but to completely ignore human impact on the enviornment is straight up foolish. Remember that you live on this planet too and there's nothing cool about denying climate change just to fit in with conservative idealogy.
Did you watch the documentary? It addresses everything you're talking about.

Also, even the founder of Greenpeace comes up with some interesting questions:

Still looking for a crew... crew

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=169710413
post 1506985871 06-03-2017, 08:20 AM
-
#87
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  1. faxanadu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Posts: 13,123
  6. Rep Power: 54413
Originally Posted By Ugliestincel⏩
The levels of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at an all time high, we can measure this from samples from ice cores. And they are severely higher, almost 3x as much, a spike which started after the industrial revolution and has really went up in the past century.
If you think that's a coincidence in not sure what to say to you...
Actually no, they are not. The most common models show CO2 being much higher in the past.
There's a direct correlation between temperature and levels of greenhouse gases in the air, and it makes logical sense that greenhouse gases trap heat. Therefore if the Earth is storing more solar energy, the temperature will increase, it's simple energy balance.
Again, you're wrong. The models show little correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Obviously the Earth goes through natural periods of warmig and cooling, but to completely ignore human impact on the enviornment is straight up foolish. Remember that you live on this planet too and there's nothing cool about denying climate change just to fit in with conservative idealogy.
Global warming is a subset of the global environment. Stop lumping in global warming dissenters with all out polluters. Just because people reject crappy science and propaganda doesn't mean they think dumping lead into the water supply is good.

Obvious why your rep power is zero. You either A) Have never researched this stuff or B) Can't read graphs and understand models
"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013
post 1506986011 06-03-2017, 08:23 AM
-
#88
  1. chapz
  2. Registered User
  1. chapz
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Location: Oxford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 29
  6. Posts: 1,136
  7. Rep Power: 1115
Originally Posted By deltpecx⏩
Back then it was a reputable source.
reputability means nothing, it is just an indication of whether the readership wants something high brow or low brow to waste their time reading.
reliable scientific information comes from an accredited journal, if not, it is completely irrelevant.

edit i made a mistake in my ioriginal post, should have written accredited rather than reputable!
post 1506986651 06-03-2017, 08:32 AM
-
#89
  1. InfiniteRage
  2. Registered User
  1. InfiniteRage
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2011
  4. Age: 37
  5. Posts: 3,185
  6. Rep Power: 3190
cant wait for global warming to actually hit, my beach house in north canada is going to be awesome.
post 1506986741 06-03-2017, 08:33 AM
-
#90
  1. Ugliestincel
  2. Registered User
  1. Ugliestincel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2017
  4. Age: 32
  5. Posts: 15
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩
Actually no, they are not. The most common models show CO2 being much higher in the past.



Again, you're wrong. The models show little correlation between CO2 and temperature.



Global warming is a subset of the global environment. Stop lumping in global warming dissenters with all out polluters. Just because people reject crappy science and propaganda doesn't mean they think dumping lead into the water supply is good.

Obvious why your rep power is zero. You either A) Have never researched this stuff or B) Can't read graphs and understand models
Http s: //goo.gl/images/pNQ74v

Strong graph comprehension skills. There's an obvious increase in carbon dioxide.

And what models are you talking about? Models have nothing to do with corrleations. The correlation between temperature and co2 is based on numerical data obtained from ice cores, and are then curve fitted to determine if there's a correlation. It's not a strong correlation since obviously there are numerous things that effect the climate such as the earth's orbit/tilt, continent location, ect. But it is foolish to disregard the effect of greenhouse gases forming a blanket over the Earth, emitted by humans.

And to the poster above, the video just dodged the question. Just cause the Earth is in a warming period, doesn't mean that humans can't make the Earth even more warmer than it is supposed to be.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts