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
» If you don't believe in climate change, please step into this thread and explain why.
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 359
  2. First
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Last
post 1475948921 12-21-2016, 11:26 AM
-
#91
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
  5. Posts: 34,072
  6. Rep Power: 206818
Originally Posted By UberAlles
evolution is a fact, people still dispute it. it doesn't change that some people, yourself included are just straight retarded
Why are you talking about evolution? We're talking about the fictional leftist propagated pseudoscience of man-made climate change.
Originally Posted By Kalmah6661
That's an incorrect assumption. People still discuss evolution, and that's 100% fact. Only ignorant retards with no understanding of scientific consensus think man-mad climate change isn't real. The republicans have done a good job of herding the sheep into the pen on this one.
Because I'm going to believe the liberals who deny the basic science of biology as it pertains to gender.
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."

-Hercules

Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
post 1475949071 12-21-2016, 11:27 AM
-
#92
  1. UberAlles
  2. Registered User
  1. UberAlles
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2009
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 4,164
  6. Rep Power: 14621
Originally Posted By InstantLoser
Why are you talking about evolution? We're talking about the fictional leftist propagated pseudoscience of man-made climate change.
so provide the peer review evidence that it's fictional, that's what the peer review process is for

waiting...
post 1475949321 12-21-2016, 11:30 AM
-
#93
  1. NickelArse
  2. beast mode
  1. NickelArse
  2. beast mode
  3. Join Date: May 2009
  4. Location: Adelaide, Australia
  5. Posts: 3,640
  6. Rep Power: 30610
Originally Posted By thorpowers
Sun spot activity has doubled in the last century, what do you mean it's not more active? The Strongest variable by far is the Sun. Literally the only experiment that could be done to know for sure whether CO2 is he dominant factor affecting climate change or not is to have a second, identical Earth, with everything being the same, except lower CO2 levels. This is impossible with today's technology. To be clear I am not ruling out the possibility it is the CO2, but to say with absolute certainty that it could not be another variable, is unscientific. Especially when we have no experiments to control for these variables, nor do we fully understand what all variables may be at play and how they interact with one another.
*snipped from another thread*

This guy gets it, current burden of proof is far too low.

If we accepted the climate science current correlation=causation in the medical world we would still be using leeches to cure headaches.
insta www.instagram.com/strongbanter
lifting log https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=164163411
post 1475949371 12-21-2016, 11:30 AM
-
#94
  1. SportCoat
  2. Not Banned Not Brad
  1. SportCoat
  2. Not Banned Not Brad
  3. Join Date: Feb 2016
  4. Posts: 3,621
  5. Rep Power: 11141
1. the climate is always changing
2. humans do affect the climate, just don't know to what extent or even if it is significant
3. i'm skeptical of anything that tries to make me fearful of something
4. even if climate change is 100% due to humans, it doesn't mean it's the end of the world.
5. even if climate change is 100% due to humans, the solution isn't taxation.
post 1475949731 12-21-2016, 11:33 AM
-
#95
  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 winjones
Rapid warming due to natural causes ended around 10,000 years ago.



Specifically look at the rapid change over the past 1000 years... where else in history does this happen? Explain the breaking of this tread around the time of the Industrial Revolution?

Please find another model that refutes this or something that disproves it... you can use any part of Earth's history. I'm open to a debate.
The person that did your graph cherry picked a section that looks good for their argument. I'm not 100% sure this graph is accurate but it doesn't cherry pick such a small time period like yours...




As for what could be causing a temperature rise...



"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 1475949941 12-21-2016, 11:35 AM
-
#96
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By InstantLoser
Why are you talking about evolution? We're talking about the fictional leftist propagated pseudoscience of man-made climate change.



Because I'm going to believe the liberals who deny the basic science of biology as it pertains to gender.
See, this is your problem. You think everything is a phucking political debate. THIS IS SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS.

Here's what NASA has to say about climate change. Unless you think NASA is a liberal propaganda machine? LOL.

http://climate.nasa.gov/
post 1475950051 12-21-2016, 11:36 AM
-
#97
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Location: Sugar Land, Texas, United States
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 12,142
  7. Rep Power: 13135
Not even that I don't believe it so much, just that some unscrupulous organizations will use it as an excuse to gain more power and control over the industries that modern society depends on.

Make no mistake, their ultimate goal is total and complete power over society. Nationalization of energy industries is a great step forward in accomplishing this. They don't give a chit about polar bears or penguins either.
*Proud citizen of the Bountiful and Great Trumpian Empire crew

'Service guarantees citizenship'
post 1475950701 12-21-2016, 11:41 AM
-
#98
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
[QUOTE=Adnim post_id=1475950291]I think you meant to say 0.3%

[URL=http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf]http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/si...ogy%5B1%5D.pdf[/URL]


Here's a shorter read:[URL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#50095b7b5909]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#50095b7b5909[/URL]


And here's a video if you don't feel like reading
[youtube]oY-LVhNM5fA[youtube][/QUOTE]Lmao at your source. climaterealists.org? LOL.

Why do you people always find random blogs on page 50 of Google with no sources? LOL. Yeah, you convinced me!

Here's another blog on page 52 that says climate change is fake: gunsandliberty4prez.info

James Taylor is a big retard, too. You picked the two worst sources on earth.
post 1475951201 12-21-2016, 11:44 AM
-
#99
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Posts: 24,317
  5. Rep Power: 96727
OP if you can name ONE scientist who isn't a TV personality and without googling it, i'll accept climate change and dedicated my life to fixing it

climate change zealots who love to spew the 99% of scientists hur dur line but can't name a single scientist, period. Let alone a climate scientist
post 1475951661 12-21-2016, 11:48 AM
-
#100
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By cashinout
OP if you can name ONE scientist who isn't a TV personality and without googling it, i'll accept climate change and dedicated my life to fixing it

climate change zealots who love to spew the 99% of scientists hur dur line but can't name a single scientist, period. Let alone a climate scientist
Your argument is so bad that it hurts. Because people don't know the names of any of the scientists in a scientific consensus, it means man-made climate change isn't real? Get phucked, idiot. The data is what's important.

Please read and learn science. You're extremely ignorant.
post 1475951841 12-21-2016, 11:49 AM
-
#101
  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 jamesbwbevis
I like how you sighted your sources.

who are they? Let me guess, alex jones, joe rogan, and a few oil companies
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhous...xide-emissions

"The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. This produces 42.84% of natural carbon dioxide emissions. The oceans contain dissolved carbon dioxide, which is released into the air at the sea surface.Annually this process creates about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.4 16"

"The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels. This produces 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy which is most commonly turned into heat, electricity or power for transportation. Some examples of where they are used are in power plants, cars, planes and industrial facilities. In 2011,fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnesof carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.1"



If you account for other sources naturally. You get close to a trillion tons naturally vs. mans 30 billion.
"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 1475951881 12-21-2016, 11:49 AM
-
#102
  1. BongoBanger
  2. Banned
  1. BongoBanger
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2004
  4. Posts: 13,852
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Kalmah6661
Lmao at your source. climaterealists.org? LOL.

Why do you people always find random blogs on page 50 of Google with no sources? LOL. Yeah, you convinced me!

Here's another blog on page 52 that says climate change is fake: gunsandliberty4prez.info

James Taylor is a big retard, too. You picked the two worst sources on earth.
theres no point in arguing bro. climate change is just something made up by the left to tax us more.
because scaring people into believing climate change is the best way to tax us.
post 1475952071 12-21-2016, 11:50 AM
-
#103
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Posts: 24,317
  5. Rep Power: 96727
Originally Posted By Kalmah6661
Your argument is so bad that it hurts. Because people don't know the names of any of the scientists in a scientific consensus, it means man-made climate change isn't real? Get phucked, idiot. The data is what's important.

Please read and learn science. You're extremely ignorant.
lmao stfu

people get spoon fed narratives and they cling to them based on whether they're popular or not

if you're going to cite 97% of scientists on the entire fuking planet but can't even name a single one, then you need to fuk right off back to CNN and TV dinners

"read and learn science"

dumbest thing i've ever read
post 1475952251 12-21-2016, 11:52 AM
-
#104
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By BongoBanger
theres no point in arguing bro. climate change is just something made up by the left to tax us more.
because scaring people into believing climate change is the best way to tax us.
------------>Misc for people with an IQ of 60 or lower

EDIT: you were being sarcastic. Missed it, brah.
post 1475952281 12-21-2016, 11:52 AM
-
#105
  1. infinit
  2. Registered User
  1. infinit
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 4,466
  7. Rep Power: 11079
Originally Posted By faxanadu
As for what could be causing a temperature rise...



That's been proven over and over again to be wrong in peer-reviwed studies. I've not seen ONE peer-reviewed study in this thread attempting to show humanity is not causing climate change. I am waiting.
post 1475952531 12-21-2016, 11:53 AM
-
#106
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Adnim
Perfect user title to post content ratio.


The scientists who wrote that paper were all categorized by Cook's study as having no position on AGW, when they actually strongly disagreed.
It's true, though. You won't find your chitty arguments using real sources, so you find some bullchit on some random blog you found on ******** or something. It's embarrassing that you'll believe some random blog over NASA.
post 1475952841 12-21-2016, 11:56 AM
-
#107
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Location: Sugar Land, Texas, United States
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 12,142
  7. Rep Power: 13135
Originally Posted By infinit
That's been proven over and over again to be wrong in peer-reviwed studies. I've not seen ONE peer-reviewed study in this thread attempting to show humanity is not causing climate change. I am waiting.
Who controls the purse strings and content of "peer-reviewed" studies?
*Proud citizen of the Bountiful and Great Trumpian Empire crew

'Service guarantees citizenship'
post 1475952971 12-21-2016, 11:57 AM
-
#108
  1. Sportacus88
  2. Registered User
  1. Sportacus88
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2014
  4. Location: Pennsylvania, United States
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 1,277
  7. Rep Power: 2794
The sun has the biggest impact on our climate.

Following the suns solar cycle would leave you to believe that the amount of sun spots and frequency of solar flares would be the biggest reason for the shifting of climates on Earth.

Our distance from the sun dictates our very existence, and it's activity will always impact us greatly.

However study on the stars and solar cycles is mostly theoretical, takes extremely long periods of time to observe data, and the equipment needed to even observe data is still mostly in it's infancy.

Also, it's compounded by the fact that even if we learn more about the sun, solar cycles, and space weather, there is little to nothing we can actually do about the suns activity.



To fuel the conversation a bit here though, it must be noted that when trying to site the Earths past climates as a ''source of information'', the methods to determine the Earths weather in the past is still only theoretical, and the truth would probably be different than what we assume. Often when solid evidence/proof surfaces, it only vague appears as what the theory stated, case in point would be the dinosaur tail encased in amber that was recently discovered, and how it will change how we think dinosaurs looked like.
post 1475953041 12-21-2016, 11:58 AM
-
#109
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Posts: 24,317
  5. Rep Power: 96727
Originally Posted By Kalmah6661
It's true, though. You won't find your chitty arguments using real sources, so you find some bullchit on some random blog you found on ******** or something. It's embarrassing that you'll believe some random blog over NASA.
> wants real sources from skeptics

> says it doesn't matter if you don't know a single climate scientist's name who worked on all of this stuff

the cognitive dissonance is strong
post 1475953091 12-21-2016, 11:58 AM
-
#110
  1. jamesbwbevis
  2. Banned
  1. jamesbwbevis
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 18,281
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By faxanadu
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhous...xide-emissions

"The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. This produces 42.84% of natural carbon dioxide emissions. The oceans contain dissolved carbon dioxide, which is released into the air at the sea surface.Annually this process creates about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.4 16"

"The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels. This produces 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy which is most commonly turned into heat, electricity or power for transportation. Some examples of where they are used are in power plants, cars, planes and industrial facilities. In 2011,fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnesof carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.1"



If you account for other sources naturally. You get close to a trillion tons naturally vs. mans 30 billion.
this doesn't necessarily matter. If it's the man made contribution thats pushing the system into meltdown mode, we should stop it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...iny-to-matter/
post 1475953131 12-21-2016, 11:59 AM
-
#111
  1. MrVeggie
  2. Banned
  1. MrVeggie
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Posts: 10,068
  5. Rep Power: 0
You'd do better posting on reddit op on subs such as either changemyview or Eli5.

These guys explained pretty well as to why climate change is man made
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike..._proof_like_i/

In the last 650k years, Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. The last was 7k years ago, marking the end of the Ice Age.
CO2 was demonstrated to trap heat in the mid 19th century. In the course of the last 650k years, Earth atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above 300ppm, and we know that through mineral deposits, fossils, and arctic ice leaving telltale predictable signs of how much CO2 must have been in the air at the time. Today, CO2 is over 400ppm. Not only have we kept fantastic records pre-industrial revolution, especially the Swedes for centuries, but arctic ice has acted as a more recent history of the last several dozen centuries. CO2 levels has been growing at unprecedented rates and achieving levels higher than we've ever known to occur that wasn't in the wake of planetary disaster and mass extinction. It follows that if CO2 traps heat, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, it's going to trap more heat than ever before.
Sea levels are rising. 17cm over the last century. The last decade alone has seen twice the rise of the previous century. So not only are the oceans rising, but the rate of rise is increasing exponentially.
The Earth's average temperature has increased since 1880, most of that has been in the last 35 years. 15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2001. We're in a period of solar decline, where the output of the sun cycles every 11 or so years. Despite the sun putting out less energy, the average continues to rise and in 2015 the Earth's average was 1C hotter on average than in 1890. That doesn't sound like much, but if we go some 0.7C hotter, we'll match the age of the dinosaurs when the whole planet was a tropical jungle. That's not a good thing.
The ice caps are losing mass. While we've seen cycles of recession and growth, you have to consider ice is more than area, it's also thickness and density. Yes, we've seen big sheets of ice form, but A) they didn't stay, and B) how thick were they? Greenland has lost 60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica has lost at least 30 cubic miles, both in the last decade. Greenland is not denying global warming, they're feverishly building ports to poise themselves as one of the most valuable ocean trading hubs in the world as the northern pass is opening, and it's projected you'll be able to sail across the north pole, a place you can currently stand, year-round.
Glacier ice is retreating all over the world, in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of unprecedented intense weather events has been increasing since 1950 in the US. The number of record highs has been increasing, and record lows decreasing.
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 and water makes carbonic acid, - seltzer water! The oceans are 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution. 93% of The Great Barrier Reef has been bleeched and 22% and rising is dead as a consequence. The ocean currently absorbs 9.3 billion tons of CO2 a year and is currently absorbing an additional 2 billion tons annually. Not because the ocean is suddenly getting better at it, but because there's more saturation in the atmosphere.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...idification%3F
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
post 1475953441 12-21-2016, 12:01 PM
-
#112
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  1. Kalmah6661
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 8,245
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By cashinout
> wants real sources from skeptics

> says it doesn't matter if you don't know a single climate scientist's name who worked on all of this stuff

the cognitive dissonance is strong
I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means....

And it definitely doesn't matter if you know the name of a scientist. Would the theory of relativity not exist if we didn't know that the scientist's name was Albert Einstein? Of course not. Your logic sucks.
post 1475953511 12-21-2016, 12:02 PM
-
#113
  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 infinit
That's been proven over and over again to be wrong in peer-reviwed studies. I've not seen ONE peer-reviewed study in this thread attempting to show humanity is not causing climate change. I am waiting.
Sure...

So a fireball in the sky that sends more capturable solar energy in an hour to earth than mankind uses in a year couldn't possibly have a bigger effect on our climate than humans...

"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 1475954121 12-21-2016, 12:08 PM
-
#114
  1. jamesbwbevis
  2. Banned
  1. jamesbwbevis
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 18,281
  6. Rep Power: 0
science
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

So what’s going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.
post 1475954201 12-21-2016, 12:09 PM
-
#115
  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 UberAlles
evolution is a fact, people still dispute it. it doesn't change that some people, yourself included are just straight retarded
Evolution isn't anymore fact than gravity is fact. Congrats, you've described a phenomenon. The actually "how" is strongly debated and theoretical.
"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 1475954281 12-21-2016, 12:10 PM
-
#116
  1. infinit
  2. Registered User
  1. infinit
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 4,466
  7. Rep Power: 11079
Originally Posted By faxanadu
Sure...

So a fireball in the sky that sends more capturable solar energy in an hour to earth than mankind uses in a year couldn't possibly have a bigger effect on our climate than humans...

It can, but nothing that has occured with the Sun explains the changes in climate seen.

4 of the most respected studies on it:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../464/2094/1367
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../464/2094/1387
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf
post 1475954421 12-21-2016, 12:11 PM
-
#117
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  1. cashinout
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Posts: 24,317
  5. Rep Power: 96727
Originally Posted By Kalmah6661
I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means....

And it definitely doesn't matter if you know the name of a scientist. Would the theory of relativity not exist if we didn't know that the scientist's name was Albert Einstein? Of course not. Your logic sucks.
no your logic sucks

i haven't even taken a stance, all i've done is push back a little bit to see how tards who blindly follow everything react

the fact that you think a 97% consensus on anything shouldn't be questioned means you don't actually understand science
post 1475954671 12-21-2016, 12:13 PM
-
#118
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
  5. Posts: 34,072
  6. Rep Power: 206818
Originally Posted By jamesbwbevis
science
Solution: More plants.
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."

-Hercules

Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
post 1475954741 12-21-2016, 12:13 PM
-
#119
  1. MuckSnapper
  2. Bearded Princess
  1. MuckSnapper
  2. Bearded Princess
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Posts: 17,959
  5. Rep Power: 46739
Originally Posted By cashinout
OP if you can name ONE scientist who isn't a TV personality and without googling it, i'll accept climate change and dedicated my life to fixing it

climate change zealots who love to spew the 99% of scientists hur dur line but can't name a single scientist, period. Let alone a climate scientist
This is a massive fallacy and seriously irrelevant to the conversation.
There is no thing without nothing.

_____________________________________


MCC TAutist dicord: https://discord.gg/nX2fBRu
post 1475954931 12-21-2016, 12:15 PM
-
#120
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  1. InstantLoser
  2. #1 Pimp Korea
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
  5. Posts: 34,072
  6. Rep Power: 206818
Anything a bunch of leftists want to ridicule me if I don't believe it usually indicates I'm on the right track when I don't buy it.
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."

-Hercules

Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
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