Red1966
Well-Known Member
See, problem gone! Absorbed by ocean. And you were worried
Bill Nye owns Heritage retard on climate change
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i would love to see some citation of that.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
I put that in quotes for a reason.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-extremely-likely-to-be-man-made-un-panel-says-1.1870378
Yes they are. Dumbass.
It's not a blog. It's a report. Your blatant stupidity is getting tiresome.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so i took it upon myself to look for citation of red's claim that humans are responsible for less than 3% of CO2 emissions annually.
here is what i found: a political blog from the heritage foundation!
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/
they cite a study from the national center for policy analysis, which is a right wing think tank funded by (you guessed it) exxonmobil and the koch brothers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
red sure does despise "political blogs" a whole lot for someone who depends on them wholly and completely for his misguided worldvoew.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
That you read on a blog. Yawn. Your basic theory is "everybody that doesn't defer to your opinion is a dumb ass". "Global warming" is no longer accepted. You have to call it "climate change" since the environment doesn't seem to be interested in following your predictions
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Because it wasn't a quote?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
your "less than 3%" claim comes from a blog funded by exxonmobil and the koch brothers.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
'facts' are fun.
Right red?
Right red?
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Says 'political blogs' are harmful to credibility, while simultaneously using political blogs as his source.
Global warming is what causes climate change, btw.
You wonder why people think you're dumb?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Quote even one instance where I used a blog for a source. You can't. Yes, global warming caused unusually COLD weather last winter.
You wonder why people think you're dumb?
Climate change is a reality. There was a picture in the paper recently of the Tennessee river frozen so solid that cars were driving on it. It was in 1940, and was not an uncommon occurrence at the time.
There has not been ice on that river in knoxville for decades. Fuggetabout being able to walk or drive on it.
Texas has not had hardly any rain for three years. There is a dry lake around Austin that was full just 4 years ago. Ranchers have sold most of their heads of cattle because they can't afford water for them.
Now, shit like this happens naturally all the time. But this is a fairly dramatic change in a pretty quick period of time.
Where I differ is in how much man is involved, and how bad it will get.
It is raining more here than it used to, in east Tennessee.
Might have to start piping water to Texas.
Republicans cannot admit to this, or they don't get any funding.
It's a pretty impossible thing for our country to handle politically.
There has not been ice on that river in knoxville for decades. Fuggetabout being able to walk or drive on it.
Texas has not had hardly any rain for three years. There is a dry lake around Austin that was full just 4 years ago. Ranchers have sold most of their heads of cattle because they can't afford water for them.
Now, shit like this happens naturally all the time. But this is a fairly dramatic change in a pretty quick period of time.
Where I differ is in how much man is involved, and how bad it will get.
It is raining more here than it used to, in east Tennessee.
Might have to start piping water to Texas.
Republicans cannot admit to this, or they don't get any funding.
It's a pretty impossible thing for our country to handle politically.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
The loudest people on both sides of the issue are idiots, so anything productive happening is doubtful.
My evolution on the subject began with An Inconvenient Truth. I'm a believer, think ZOMG we better do something and immediately begin taking actions to reduce my carbon footprint. Especially in areas that made financial sense too.
I see the non-sensical measures being proposed and think oh shit, the idiots are trying to take advantage of the idiots, they are not at all concerned with solving anything. I see Al Gore really has no clue and was wrong way too many times to have any credibility. The loud idiots argued that Al Gore is not an idiot and the side loses even more credibility. I'm now a skeptic.
IPCC is shown to be shady as fuck, I'm not just a skeptic, I'm bordering on being a denier. The idiots argue that IPCC isn't shady as fuck making their argument even less credible.
I make an effort to understand the data that's available all over the place and I'm back to being a believer again.
The Journal of Science reports that all 104 or so (going by memory, if you care about exactly, look it up) studies they looked at overestimated when they predicted temps.The idiots argue this never happened. Now I'm in the camp that we need to figure out why our predictive models are wrong and let's fix them but we are still harming our planet, we just don't understand how much.
I'm going to make the argument like this. Ignore Gore, he's an unfortunate idiot, take him out of the equation. The IPCC is full of people that are shady as fuck but most of their science is solid. We are off on temps and need to know what that means.
In the mean time, stop polluting so much until we figure this shit out.
I ignore the "God's will" angle and the "we may be the cause but can't be the cure" logic too.
My evolution on the subject began with An Inconvenient Truth. I'm a believer, think ZOMG we better do something and immediately begin taking actions to reduce my carbon footprint. Especially in areas that made financial sense too.
I see the non-sensical measures being proposed and think oh shit, the idiots are trying to take advantage of the idiots, they are not at all concerned with solving anything. I see Al Gore really has no clue and was wrong way too many times to have any credibility. The loud idiots argued that Al Gore is not an idiot and the side loses even more credibility. I'm now a skeptic.
IPCC is shown to be shady as fuck, I'm not just a skeptic, I'm bordering on being a denier. The idiots argue that IPCC isn't shady as fuck making their argument even less credible.
I make an effort to understand the data that's available all over the place and I'm back to being a believer again.
The Journal of Science reports that all 104 or so (going by memory, if you care about exactly, look it up) studies they looked at overestimated when they predicted temps.The idiots argue this never happened. Now I'm in the camp that we need to figure out why our predictive models are wrong and let's fix them but we are still harming our planet, we just don't understand how much.
I'm going to make the argument like this. Ignore Gore, he's an unfortunate idiot, take him out of the equation. The IPCC is full of people that are shady as fuck but most of their science is solid. We are off on temps and need to know what that means.
In the mean time, stop polluting so much until we figure this shit out.
I ignore the "God's will" angle and the "we may be the cause but can't be the cure" logic too.
Last edited:
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Stahp!!!!!! with the logic!!!!! You're making too much sense.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
No, people who ignore evidence are stupid or have an agenda... or both.
You're too stupid to have an agenda....
You just demonstrated you don't know what global warming is. Congrats, asshat.
You've been arguing against something you can't even define properly. lol
SMRT.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How has the IPCC shown to be "shady as fuck"?
I'm assuming you're referring to climategate, if you reached that conclusion because of something else correct me
"The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs, with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.
The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December. Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference. In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
Anyone seen those portable floating 'blimp' generators?
http://www.altaerosenergies.com/
Neat idea, harvesting the wind at 1000-2000 feet....
or this...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns
Less than $250/m2, 80% efficiency, 25,000W..... not bad, Solar energy.... not bad.
http://www.altaerosenergies.com/
Neat idea, harvesting the wind at 1000-2000 feet....
or this...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns
Less than $250/m2, 80% efficiency, 25,000W..... not bad, Solar energy.... not bad.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Stop wasting time, put your money into fusion.
Its quite literally the universe's source of powah.
Ceepea
Well-Known Member
For all we know we might never have fusion energy. These sources actually exist in usable form.
Not saying we should scrap fusion research, but there's no reason to stop researching other methods as well.
EDIT: The 'blimp' would be outstanding in rescue scenarios....