Global Warming Update

Sustainable420

Sustainable420

Active Member
IF global warming science was a hoax (I personally don't think so, but whatever), the positive consiquences would still outweigh the negative ones, IMO. Better air quailty, holding polluters accountable, and clean renewable energy need to happen anyways. Don't take what I'm saying out of context. I think it's immoral for people to be misled or even lied to to push an adjenda, but at the same time it's a good adjenda and it gets pushed easier with fear. This is where I can see a vaild reason for ruffled-feathers.

Also, I forgot who quoted me, but I'm not telling you how to live your life. I was just giving an example/idea.

I like how Woodstock.Hippie always posts videos.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
Asserting that climate change in not manmade over and over again, like some desperate chant, will not make it so. I pity the person who would side with the folks whose basic understanding of science is so pathetic that they would state, in all seriousness:

"the oceans are full of icebergs. when they melt the ocean levels will DROP. when the land ice melts it will RISE to where it is NOW keeping it all even. "

Really? No, really? You seriously just thought this shit up while high and decided 'it sounds good, so I might as well pass it off as fact'. Well, you must have never heard of these things called measurements of ocean levels taken by people called scientists/oceanographers/climatologists at various locations all over the world that show that the ocean levels are indeed rising. Or perhaps you like to ignore the truth because of the cognitive dissonance it causes you after posting all your stupidity.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
Oh, and just thought I'd point out that the ocean is not really full of icebergs, those comparatively tiny things are what falls off of glaciers. Imbecile.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
And PadawanBater, they are not adressing what you posted because they have neither the intellectual capabilities nor the factual data to do so. They simply like to pat each other on the cocks for whoever puts out the most retarded assertion that flies in the face of actual science.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Sustainable420 said:
IF global warming science was a hoax (I personally don't think so, but whatever), the positive consiquences would still outweigh the negative ones, IMO. Better air quailty, holding polluters accountable, and clean renewable energy need to happen anyways. Don't take what I'm saying out of context. I think it's immoral for people to be misled or even lied to to push an adjenda, but at the same time it's a good adjenda and it gets pushed easier with fear. This is where I can see a vaild reason for ruffled-feathers.

Also, I forgot who quoted me, but I'm not telling you how to live your life. I was just giving an example/idea.

I like how Woodstock.Hippie always posts videos.
Click to expand...
dukeofbaja said:
Asserting that climate change in not manmade over and over again, like some desperate chant, will not make it so. I pity the person who would side with the folks whose basic understanding of science is so pathetic that they would state, in all seriousness:

"the oceans are full of icebergs. when they melt the ocean levels will DROP. when the land ice melts it will RISE to where it is NOW keeping it all even. "

Really? No, really? You seriously just thought this shit up while high and decided 'it sounds good, so I might as well pass it off as fact'. Well, you must have never heard of these things called measurements of ocean levels taken by people called scientists/oceanographers/climatologists at various locations all over the world that show that the ocean levels are indeed rising. Or perhaps you like to ignore the truth because of the cognitive dissonance it causes you after posting all your stupidity.
Click to expand...

Guys, thanks for your support, but this is simply uncalled for. It's one thing to post inflammatory stuff to someone when they're being a retard about the information, (edit) Choda comes to mind right away, but I think most of the opposition to climate change comes from people who are simply misled about it. Fdd, Cracker, jeff, IS, all of them I'm positive want what is best for the planet, just like we do, but what is posting stuff like this going to accomplish? Nothing. It's just going to spread the divide even further and make it even harder for them to accept the science in the future. It makes the problem more difficult because it puts people on the defensive.

Fuck politics guys, the science is far from debunked. There are countless scientific peer reviewed papers on climate change, thousands of scientists who've come to the same conclusions, and a small minority who are still skeptical about our influence on the temps rising. This stuff is fact. Burning fossil fuels puts Carbon in the atmosphere, we've been doing it for 100 years, at an exponential rate each year, Carbon increases the greenhouse effect, which increases global temperatures. With an increase in temperatures the ice melts. When the ice melts, the carbon trapped inside the ice also gets released into the atmosphere, increasing the emissions even more. So you see, it's not simply what we're doing that's causing the increase in temperatures, it's what we've done as well. It's a snowball effect that will wind up out of our control if we don't do anything about it as soon as possible.


 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
Asserting that climate change in not manmade over and over again, like some desperate chant, will not make it so. I pity the person who would side with the folks whose basic understanding of science is so pathetic that they would state, in all seriousness:

"the oceans are full of icebergs. when they melt the ocean levels will DROP. when the land ice melts it will RISE to where it is NOW keeping it all even. "

Really? No, really? You seriously just thought this shit up while high and decided 'it sounds good, so I might as well pass it off as fact'. Well, you must have never heard of these things called measurements of ocean levels taken by people called scientists/oceanographers/climatologists at various locations all over the world that show that the ocean levels are indeed rising. Or perhaps you like to ignore the truth because of the cognitive dissonance it causes you after posting all your stupidity.
Click to expand...

yep i was high, and that was 2 days ago. and i admitted how silly i was being and haven't psoted much since. and yet you still can't get over it.

pathetic.

:eyesmoke:
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
And PadawanBater, they are not adressing what you posted because they have neither the intellectual capabilities nor the factual data to do so. They simply like to pat each other on the cocks for whoever puts out the most retarded assertion that flies in the face of actual science.
Click to expand...

i'd close the thread now because of this, but i like giving you infractions more. one more and it's a 10 day vacation. :peace::joint::joint:
 
Woodstock.Hippie

Woodstock.Hippie

New Member
fdd2blk said:
yep i was high, and that was 2 days ago. and i admitted how silly i was being and haven't psoted much since. and yet you still can't get over it.
Click to expand...
I don't think we make silly observations at all.

This is science, my scientist friends.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]"

Noticing and theorizing why the water level hardly changes as the ice melts in a glass of water starts a mental path down a most marvelously bioluminescent path

How else could you explain mystical magical blue physical phenomena?

When your acquaintances like to bite you for proposing novel ideas they do not fully understand, you learn quickly they can't through metalized leather armor very easily.

Know how to make leather with no electricity?

:hump:
:peace:
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
And no, I never reported it. I figured since you were posting left and right in that thread, a blatant personal attack like that might have caught your attention, what with your 44,000+ posts and all. But I understand that you may, in some respect, need to depend reports like this. I may choose to report it, but ehhhh
 
Woodstock.Hippie

Woodstock.Hippie

New Member
Sometimes ITs best to listen.

[youtube]d6sFVkNmSgs[/youtube][youtube]X8aWBcPVPMo[/youtube][youtube]FjHJ7FmV0M4[/youtube]

Phollow the Phake money.

[youtube]SmVAWKfJ4Go[/youtube]

:peace::hump:
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
And no, I never reported it. I figured since you were posting left and right in that thread, a blatant personal attack like that might have caught your attention, what with your 44,000+ posts and all. But I understand that you may, in some respect, need to depend reports like this. I may choose to report it, but ehhhh
Click to expand...

on



and on





and on







and on ...


:roll:
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Big P said:
now what do you guys say?


Climategate U-turn: World may not be warming, say scientists...

'Lost the relevant papers'...

The professor's amazing climate change retreat...



hey missmoss where are you see above!!!!

:-P:weed:
Click to expand...
That first one's about surface temperatures skewing the data. I found this from Wiki;

On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[13] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[14][15] Since then NOAA has released a detailed peer reviewed study confirming both reliability of the surface stations reviewed. The results show that poor stations produce a slight cooling bias, in stark contrast to Watts claim, but also that after corrections both poor and highly rated stations align very well.

Get to the rest when I get home from work.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
The stations reviewed.... that's the trick in the sentence.

The problem is the stations were "cherry picked"

The science has already been deemed fraudulent.
 
Sustainable420

Sustainable420

Active Member
I have an idea. I'm going to post a poll with the four following options:

-Care about enviro., believe in CC
-Care about enviro., don't believe in CC
-Don't care about enviro., believe in CC
-Don't care about enviro., don't believe in CC

Speculation, anyone? I think the most votes will be with the first and last, but you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top