twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I disagree with KP a lot but dude is actually super polite.
"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What's funny is the only people who deny the science behind climate change and the overwhelming consensus in support of it are older than 40 years old and have little to no basic understanding of how modern science works. Can someone younger than 40 be found who denies climate change is happening?
That should tell you old folks something..
That should tell you old folks something..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Stating a fact is "defending Hitler"?
Solar activity is not related to the amount of heat energy hitting the earth.
That young people like yourself are easy to fool?
kinddiesel
Well-Known Member
very hard to read all that when your stoned as fuck. my opinion
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Myself and 98% of the worlds leading scientists?
It's a common theme among that demographic, science and education is not something they value. They don't accept the theory of evolution for similar political reasons, is that just a coincidence?
tobinates559
Well-Known Member
that statement means nothing because i'm hardly old enough to drink a beer and i started this thread!!!!??? so what are you talking about,??
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm talking about how the vast majority of professionals whose job it is to study the climate agree that human activity is the cause
You're literally the first person I've ever come across who isn't a bitter old scientifically illiterate numbnuts.
Do you accept the theory of evolution?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you blame the jews for WWII instead of hitler? is it because you love hitler so much? is that why you also listen to white supremacy groups within the united states, like numbersUSA?
the southern poverty law center calls them a hate group, just like the KKK or neo-nazis. you must be a neo-nazi, and thus why you love hitler so much and hate jews, blacks, and immigrants.
pretty disgusting stuff, but then again, you are just the sock puppet of an old neo-nazi from last summer.
tobinates559
Well-Known Member
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
“The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: “In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.” If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Could it be that people over 40 have heard the politically driven scientific babel in the past.
In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Could it be that people over 40 have heard the politically driven scientific babel in the past.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you just cited climatedepot.com, which was started by political scientist marc morano, whose career began working for rush limbaugh, and whose website is funded by political magnate richard scaife, before bemoaning "politically driven scientific bael [SIC]".
not only do you love hitler and white supremacy, but you also just self-owned yourself harder than i've ever seen anyone else self-own.
hilarious in its utter douchebaggery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then no, you don't accept the theory of evolution.. Evolution happens, but not to humans? wut..
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter who I cited, the articles are all independent. If you don't agree with NASA and the National Academy of Sciences, just say so.
Marginalizing my sources won't work on me, that's an old and worn out tactic.
see4
Well-Known Member
How can one possibly consider your opinion credible when you can't even spell practiced correctly?
see4
Well-Known Member
No. He merely provided background as to who was providing their opinion in the article you referenced. You being defensive about it only shows how weak your argument is.
Good day ma'am.
Remember, Zab Judda got knocked the fucked out.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You cited an article from 1971 whose co-author went on to say this in 1977;
In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age), which predicted an imminent Ice Age. He wrote in Nature:
...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when.
...hence the term "Climate Change", "global warming" was too political a term for people ignorant of the science behind how the climate changes and any little deviation in temperature or weather patterns to them means all the science and evidence is junk.
The only reasons people don't believe it are political, just like with the theory of evolution as I mentioned before. There simply is no debate about these topics from scientifically literate people. The debate and controversy are manufactured by the right.
In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age), which predicted an imminent Ice Age. He wrote in Nature:
...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when.
...hence the term "Climate Change", "global warming" was too political a term for people ignorant of the science behind how the climate changes and any little deviation in temperature or weather patterns to them means all the science and evidence is junk.
The only reasons people don't believe it are political, just like with the theory of evolution as I mentioned before. There simply is no debate about these topics from scientifically literate people. The debate and controversy are manufactured by the right.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You might want to read before making an ass of yourself, at least you could claim being an informed fool.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they're not independent and you owned yourself in a major way.
you bemoaned "politically driven scientific babel [SIC]" right after you cited a political scientist who started off working for rush limbaugh and who runs a political website funded by a political magnate.
that's fucking funny, even an idiot like you has to admit how funny that is.