you're seriously a fuking idiot.




























SERIOUSLY.

Come to Miami Beach, everything is being elevated, and ppl are selling properties left and right, in 20 years, its going to be underwater or if real good engineering is done, maybe they can just get by.

King tides, it might not affect you since you live in nowhere, USA, but ppl that live in desirable places are getting fuked.

Why would climate scientists be attracted to becoming climate scientists - they probably had a strong interest in the environment in the first place? Therefore they have a vested interest in the outcome of their research; they are biased going into the profession in the first place, and their entire career depends on the outcome. If climate change was not real their profession (and a huge part of their identity) would cease to exist.

There probably is some man made climate change, but my annoyance is with the holier than thou attitude of these leftie douchebags. They are doing the exact opposite of "science" - they start with the conclusion and then find evidence to support that conclusion. Remember when it used to be "global warming"? There is no evidence to back that up now, so it has conveniently been relabeled as "climate change".

The human mind is subject to too many biases - confirmation bias, narrative fallacy to name a few. These "scientists" do not know the secrets of the universe.

For example, how long have we been studying climate change accurately - 100 years, 1000 years to be very generous maybe? How long has the universe existed - 6 billion years. It is an unfathomably small amount of time to be studying the environment,

Second, if climate change is real, what is the human race going to do about it? Australia have been patting themselves on the back for reducing emissions by 10% or whatever, meanwhile China emits 1000x times more than Australia does. ONE THOUSAND TIMES. The human race will not band together and sort this out because we are self-interested, that is a condition of human nature. Profits will come before the environment, national interest will come before the environment.

Buying a Prius and turning off your lights for Earth hour makes fuk all difference, the only way humans will have an effect on the environment is to reverse the industrial revolution and go back to living in caves. People do not want to do this though, they would rather look like they're doing something while keeping all their creature comforts.

The implicit assumption underlying all of this talk is that humans have existed, and will exist, on planet Earth for infinity. I don't think this is the case. Humans will come and humans will go, the universe won't really care. There is an argument to be made that humans act like a parasite on Earth - taking all its' natural resources and then dying out when the host has no more resources left. I think this is more plausible than humans living forever on planet Earth holding hands and driving their Prius around.

Cliffs:
- massive rant
- greenies have their heads up their own arse.

What? There would still be climate scientists even if global warming was shown to not be happening just like there was before it was known about. Crop yields and a whole range of things are affected by the climate and it's something as humans we need to understand.

If they have an interest in the enviroment, pedalling a bull**** story and having funds divered away from other areas would be the LAST thing they would be interested in doing.

So we should fuk up the economy because of this?

I've also read a lot of environmental/climate change scientists suffer from depression and anxiety due to their findings.

I believe in it, I just don't believe in austerity for environmentalism, at least in the USA.

Cliffs for OP:

-Climateischanging

-Man may be accelerating it, may be not. Computer models turned out to be way off

-How much is he accelerating it?

-Is it possible that mans ability to affect climate is microscopic compared to the sun? Yes. Brb one solar flare casues more change than the history of man

-Will the earth have it's own checks and balances to correct the anomaly? (eg. Lindzen and Spencer Iris theory of cirrus clouds)

-Is there a consensus? No. Cooks 97% was heavily debunked and challenged by the very scientists he named in the study

-Some of the smartest men on earth refute at least one of the aspects of climate change (see above Lindzen and Spencer to start with. Plus theres astrophysicists, NASA scientists and nobel laureates among those questioning 'climate change') See list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

-And the final question, will tax policy have any affect on climate change?Prob not

/thread

I respect Ben Shapiro but he's made himself look like a bit of a tit there. I've only watched the first minute and he's made a number of **** ups already.

Artic ice is infact disappearing.
No credible climate scientist uses the hockey stick graph.
They don't call it climate change because the Earth isn't warming, out of the top 10 hottest Global mean temperatures in recorded history, 8 come in the past 10 years. It was renamed to climate change because while the trend is warming, it can also lead to issue like storms.

Would you like to try again?

You didn't really make a point.

You didn't even watch the video.

Nor did you debunk anything, he starts off with he history of it. Then goes on philosophically.

Pretty much saying you're an idiot with no solutions.

And he's got literally every point he makes in the first 48 seconds entirely incorrect. Teh **** kind of person is that to listen to on the issue?

I'm fairly sure climate change scientists have stated exactly what needs to happen, a vast reduction in greenhouse gases emissions as Ben says. It isn't climate change scientists job to suggest how to do that, they're not qualified and it isn't their job.

I've got to 2:30 and now he is using the same, run of the mill, completely debunked point that herp derp, the climate changes all the time point which has been destroyed as an explanation. It's fairly tragic and I'm honestly disappointed to hear such an intelligent man make himself look so silly.

LMFAO, typical liberal cherry picking data to "prove" a point. you only went back 2,000 years. to answer your piss brain question, it's happened for the ENTIRETY of history

You don't seem to understand the point, that has already been explained in this thread. There are a range of variables that can alter temperature, solar activity, volcanicity, ocean trends etc etc. All things that we today are capable of measuring. There is no change in any of those that accounts for what we are seeing, except for one variable.



CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a known effect on a planets temperature, you can observe it on other planets, you can measure it in a lab. Earth doesn't break the laws of physics and chemistry.

[QUOTE=infinit post_id=1476034121]You don't seem to understand the point, that has already been explained in this thread. There are a range of variables that can alter temperature, solar activity, volcanicity, ocean trends etc etc. All things that we today are capable of measuring. There is no change in any of those that accounts for what we are seeing, except for one variable.

[img]https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/co2_data_mlo.png?w=600&h=469[/mg]

CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a known effect on a planets temperature, you can observe it on other planets, you can measure it in a lab. Earth doesn't break the laws of physics and chemistry.[/QUOTE]so NO other factor can be changing the climate right now except for CO2 is what you are suggesting?

the cyclical trend over the history of Earth is being entirely altered, yet conveniently within it's same pattern, by carbon alone. And as a result, we should, as Americans, 5% of the population, pay more in taxes, pay more fees, and grant the government/UN MORE power over us as citizens. Despite the fact that developing nations, like China/India, with many times the people, are the largest sources of pollution.

really, who are the delusional ones here?

He didn't say anything incorrect.

He said facts.

Fact: it was called global wArming before.

Fact: it's now called climate change

He said nothing wrong.

You have comprehension issues.

Either that or you're intellectually dishonest.

You lost, give it up.

Climate change is a political agenda faux-topic, there is no threat to human life and there is nothing to do about it.

We will continue pushing for whatever helps the economy, not these bogus issues.

Sure if someone provides the evidence that another variable is significantly contributing i'd love to see the evidence.Lmao. He didn't say facts, his explanation of why it changed name is incorrect, he got artic ice wrong, he got warming over the past few years wrong. He's an intelligent guy but his lack of knowledge on the area is painfully obvious. I hope you are trolling because honestly otherwise I actually feel quite sorry for you.

No his explanation makes more sense considering human motivation.

Its more likely they gave you that excuse as the reason but what Ben said was the real reason.

Essentially you're brainwashed and stuck on believing something that you want to believe, not because its the truth, but because of some other motivation.

You haven't provided any evidence he got arctic ice wrong, if anything its a debated topic, its not "wrong"

Provide evidence he got "warming over a few years wrong"

Are you just talking out your ass now?

Hes a lot more intelligent than you yeah. You don't even research evidence before you believe it.

You're a guy who "debunked" a video before even watching it, you still didn't even get what its about, you still haven't even touched on the topic.

Yet you're supposed to somehow not be considered some random tard on a message board.

You probably have some mental ailments.

Youll probably have some childish response to this as well.

Its clear you are triggered and typing about this furiously, your blood pressure rising, slowing coming to terms that you are one of the only weirdos who believes this stuff on this site and that you're probably wrong since Misc is always right.

Keep coping with your childish logic its actually kind of funny how upset about this you are lmaooo

The " it used to be called global warming!!" Rejects are the absolute scum of intellectual discourse.


Do the world a favor and don't breed.

I already have, call your mom, she's pregnant.

You're gonna have a new brother or sister and I'm gonna be the father.

I mean did it not literally used to be called global warming???? I remember thats what we used to call it lol.

It was pop culture. Can you deny thats what we used to call it??

I'm the one getting upset? LMAO. You are the one that resorted to insults first m8 so pipe down. I'm 100% correct in everything I have said and you have spouted a load of irrelevant drivel, you wheel out Ben Shaprio, a good guy but in no means in anyway knowledable on the subject as your 'expert.' It says EVERYTHING. And then you wanted sources when your source is a bloke with no credentials on the subject matter. Just LOL.

Here you go:

Artic ice
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1GL047735/full
"From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply."

Warming over the past few years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. "

GG. The last time I will bother replying to you as you are a complete waste of my oxygen.

Lmao after all that hype this guy posted some obscure bias evidence from 2007!!!!

LMAOOOOOO

HOLY CRAP some of you UK weirdos are hilarious.

Still didn't even get the point of the video. still haven't even gotten the thesis of the point.

Talking about topics that weren't even the main things in the 15 min video.

Meanwhile, in normal non-politicized science....

Climate change is real. Seems like it's a cycle of ice age -> hot as phuck over a period of thousands of years so it really doesn't matter.

The other question is whether global warming is real (humans contributing to rising temperatures even tho Earth's temp hasn't risen in 15 yrs but who's going to listen to me). We obviously make some impact with so much industry and chit but I think it doesn't matter too much.

Money towards renewable energy is a good idea because it's phucking renewable but the technology isn't capable of harnessing such power yet and is nowhere near being cost effective vs fossil fuels. So when states like SA in Aus try to have 100% renewable energy and are having blackouts and chit which results in businesses loosing all their stock it's phucking retarded.

So you're a climate denier???

Fuk u

Kill yourself and your family

(Im not fascist I'm right) ((the lib scientists all agree))

For those who might actually have some intelligence and be interested:


Adios.

Yes it does. When 100s of nations across the world pump out pollution into the atmosphere then it WILL have an effect. Just like if you don't have the EPA and environmental regulations locally the air you breath turns into a chithole like in Beijing where the chinese don't care except about making profits. I truly think you're trolling. No one can deny the science that pollution is bad for the environment.

Lmao why stop at 2012???

Is it because there's way more now than in 2012 and it's back to normal as per typical cycles???

Wow too easy.

This is pathetic.

Just bow out lol

I farted, no scientist can deny that's bad for the environment.

So now what?

What do we do about it?

Damn replying to you is addictive when literally everything you say is incorrect.



Maybe do some research before you spout stuff. You've taken what was a mildly interesting thread and ruined it with your retardation. But anyway, regardless of whatever rubbish you come up with next, Moses parted the sea or that Adam and Eve were real this shall be the last from me. Enjoy the delusion.