Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143272-americans-already-feeling-effects-of-climate-change-says-report/But I thought it was snowing in Texas.

We can't call it "climate change" anymore in this admin because of feelz. We call it "weather extremes" or something. Because if you pretend it's not happening, then it's not really happening apparently.

"I'm not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point." -Trump 2015

Triggered.

my office is freezing. so much so that my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.
therefore global warming is a hoax invented by the chinese.

Originally posted by Surtur
Triggered.

Regardless of how special you think yourself, you realize you live on this Earth too, right? You breath, drink water, eat food etc. Your family/friends/loved ones do as well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Regardless of how special you think yourself, you realize you live on this Earth too, right? You breath, drink water, eat food etc. Your family/friends/loved ones do as well.

Rob, just stop. You do not want an actual discussion on this lol. None of you do and I can tell just by the circle jerk that immediately started. Nobody wanted to engage, they just wanted to leave snotty remarks.

Which is fine, the board is near dead, but lets not deny it.

Genuine question: How much actual opposition is there to Climate Change measures in America?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
my office is freezing. so much so that my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.
therefore global warming is a hoax invented by the chinese.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, just stop. You do not want an actual discussion on this lol. None of you do and I can tell just by the circle jerk that immediately started. Nobody wanted to engage, they just wanted to leave snotty remarks.

Which is fine, the board is near dead, but lets not deny it.

^ Wow

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Wow

What did I say that was wrong? The OP posted this, and the only thing they made is a comment about snow in Texas. Was that meant to stir legit discussion?

Then you came, whined about what climate change is being labeled as, then took a shot at Trump. Can you explain how that was, in any way, an attempt at legit discussion over this? I am genuinely curious how you will explain this.

Originally posted by Surtur
What did I say that was wrong? The OP posted this, and the only thing they made is a comment about snow in Texas. Was that meant to stir legit discussion?

Then you came, whined about what climate change is being labeled as, then took a shot at Trump. Can you explain how that was, in any way, an attempt at legit discussion over this? I am genuinely curious how you will explain this.

^ wow

But in reality: my first post directly to you wasn't "whining" or "attacking Trump", while your first post to me was an attack :/

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
my office is freezing. so much so that my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.
therefore global warming is a hoax invented by the chinese.

Translation. Works in a Climate Controlled Office and thus is
taking advantage of His WHITE PRIVILEGE!

Bashy is a Hypocrite and thus a large part of the problem.

SHAME ON HIM!

He is solely responsible for killing Mother Gaea! !

Originally posted by Robtard
^ wow

But in reality: my first post directly to you wasn't "whining" or "attacking Trump", while your first post to me was an attack :/

Lol no, you came in whining about different labels of climate change. You truly feel your comment indicated a legitimate discussion was to be had? You can't be that delusional Rob.

The first thing you said was about naming it. "We can't call it climate change" lol. You started off whining.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I aint no weatherman, don't know if it's gonna rain,
cuz i'm a rock n roll clown i do a lot of cocaine.
one of these days they're gonna take me away,
cuz i'm doctor rockso and i do cocaine

KU-KU-KU-KU-KU-YEAAAAAAAH!

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol no, you came in whining about different labels of climate change. You truly feel your comment indicated a legitimate discussion was to be had? You can't be that delusional Rob.

The first thing you said was about naming it. "We can't call it climate change" lol. You started off whining.

I was speaking in regards to my first post to you, which I clearly said, I didn't attack you :/

The "extreme weather" re-labeling is a fact though, you can look it up :/

Honestly, it seems like you're trying your best to derail the thread and pick a fight :/

I believe Rob is talking about an article I saw about Trump not allowing people to use the term "climate change." I guess because he doesn't believe in it (at least not the man-caused version). That's pretty cool, right? Our fearless leader is disallowing certain language. That's great. Not Orwellian or subjugating at all.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
KU-KU-KU-KU-KU-YEAAAAAAAH!

If you believe in Climate Change then you are the one in need of medicinal pharmaceuticals.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I believe Rob is talking about an article I saw about Trump not allowing people to use the term "climate change." I guess because he doesn't believe in it (at least not the man-caused version). That's pretty cool, right? Our fearless leader is disallowing certain language. That's great. Not Orwellian or subjugating at all.

Bingo

This guy got it

No. You don't get it Robbie. That is why you are a Leftist.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
No. You don't get it Robbie. That is why you are a Leftist.

Rightists are the true masters of totalitarianism and subjugation.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
If you believe in Climate Change then you are the one in need of medicinal pharmaceuticals.

You don't?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Rightists are the true masters of totalitarianism and subjugation.

Meh. Making Climate Change a Left Vs Right thing does no good. We all live on Earth regardless of our politics, so it shouldn't be a Us Vs Them mindset, ideally.

IMO, focus squarely on the those in current power and who are scared of using the words "climate change", trying to relabeled it with something that sounds more benign. Trump and his followers.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You don't?

Trump told his acolytes that climate change is a "Chinese Hoax", so that's their reality. This legit happened

Originally posted by Robtard
Meh. Making Climate Change a Left Vs Right thing does no good. We all live on Earth regardless of our politics, so it shouldn't be a Us Vs Them mindset, ideally.

Oh, I agree completely. I'm just commenting on how Fly blames everything censorship (or anything really) on Leftists.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, I agree completely. I'm just commenting on how Fly blames everything censorship (or anything really) on Leftists.

Flyattractor is the forum's biggest imbecile, I'd not take anything he says to heart.

^ I've noticed

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I believe Rob is talking about an article I saw about Trump not allowing people to use the term "climate change." I guess because he doesn't believe in it (at least not the man-caused version). That's pretty cool, right? Our fearless leader is disallowing certain language. That's great. Not Orwellian or subjugating at all.

Indeed, he is whining about Trump lol.

Keep in mind this is 100% not debatable by Rob standards lol. He has labeled me as whining for saying "this is legit funny" and posting a link(literally nothing else).

I feel it stands, given his history. But for him it won't, just watch lol. There will be a spectacular reason given.

^ Wow

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Wow

Lol, so is this the new strategy? You pretend like you don't remember your past behavior and you toss out a "wow" ?

Feels like it'd only work on the gullible, to be honest. Good luck with it though.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, so is this the new strategy? You pretend like you don't remember your past behavior and you toss out a "wow" ?

Feels like it'd only work on the gullible, to be honest. Good luck with it though.

As noted in the previous page, I did not attack you in here, but you seem hell bent on picking a fight as a means to derail away from the topic of Climate Change/America. Weird.

I generally speak out against a lot of the left-wing people here, because I think intersectional social justice is cancer.

But just to provide my two cents here, I don't agree with the right wing position on climate change, and while I agree with Trump America wasn't exactly getting the good deal on the Paris climate accord, I could see myself being more in agreement with Trump if he actually displayed any modicum of concern for the issue.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I generally speak out against a lot of the left-wing people here, because I think intersectional social justice is cancer.

But just to provide my two cents here, I don't agree with the right wing position on climate change, and while I agree with Trump America wasn't exactly getting the good deal on the Paris climate accord, I could see myself being more in agreement with Trump if he actually displayed any modicum of concern for the issue.

This is actually an overall sensible position

No one is saying we need to stop driving internal combustion cars tomorrow and that factories need to switch over to being powered on farts. But the "it's not happening, it's all a complete hoax" narrative is impossibly idiotic and crazy dangerous. Cos what if the models are wrong, but it's actually worse? We take preemptive action on "even if there's a 1% chance" in regards to massive possible threats, why not climate change?

Originally posted by Robtard
As noted in the previous page, I did not attack you in here, but you seem hell bent on picking a fight as a means to derail away from the topic of Climate Change/America. Weird.

It's like you create these weird fantasies in your head. I never said you attacked me. I said you were not interested in legitimate discussion.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's like you create these weird fantasies in your head. I never said you attacked me. I said you were not interested in legitimate discussion.

Um, I'm having "legitimate" and non-confrontational discussions on the topic with others in here. See above, guy. So do you have anything else, besides attacking and derailing?

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, I'm having "legitimate" and non-confrontational discussions on the topic with others in here. See above, guy. So do you have anything else, besides attacking and derailing?

Lol we both know this was based off your original posts, not what you're saying now.

But you go on and pretend otherwise, what else is new?

As noted by Leech, my original post concerned something factually happening and on topic. I told you to look it up.

HYG Again:
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I believe Rob is talking about an article I saw about Trump not allowing people to use the term "climate change." I guess because he doesn't believe in it (at least not the man-caused version). That's pretty cool, right? Our fearless leader is disallowing certain language. That's great. Not Orwellian or subjugating at all.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You don't?
I'm actually skeptical about the implications and severity of the threat because the hard core pushers of the idea keep getting the effects wrong. The world didn't start towards an ice age in the late 80s like they suggested in the 70s. The world didn't become unbearably hotter with new deserts forming by 2000 like they suggested in the late 80s once they realized they were wrong about global cooling. Despite all the talk about the ice caps disappearing for decades, in 2013 the southern ice cap was bigger than had ever been recorded according to NASA satellite reports. In 2009 Al Gore that the north ice cap would be completely melted within 7 years... and it's not.

I'm not saying that there's nothing happening, but the fact of the matter is that people obviously don't know enough about how the whole system works together to scare me in regards to their predicted consequences. At this point they seem a lot like those preachers who keep predicting the rapture on a specific day so everyone in his churge gears up and waits for it... and then when it doesn't happen the preacher makes another prediction and everyone does it again and the cycle just goes on and on. I believe in God but there's no way I'm going to sell all my stuff and go out in field and wait for him.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm actually skeptical about the implications and severity of the threat because the hard core pushers of the idea keep getting the effects wrong. The world didn't start towards an ice age in the late 80s like they suggested in the 70s. The world didn't become unbearably hotter with new deserts forming by 2000 like they suggested in the late 80s once they realized they were wrong about global cooling. Despite all the talk about the ice caps disappearing for decades, in 2013 the southern ice cap was bigger than had ever been recorded according to NASA satellite reports. In 2009 Al Gore that the north ice cap would be completely melted within 7 years... and it's not.

I'm not saying that there's nothing happening, but the fact of the matter is that people obviously don't know enough about how the whole system works together to scare me in regards to their predicted consequences. At this point they seem a lot like those preachers who keep predicting the rapture on a specific day so everyone in his churge gears up and waits for it... and then when it doesn't happen the preacher makes another prediction and everyone does it again and the cycle just goes on and on. I believe in God but there's no way I'm going to sell all my stuff and go out in field and wait for him.

Except of course we can see affects of mass pollution for one, in our poisoned food/water and deaths of animal species directly connected with pollution, while absolutely nothing has happened to suggest a rapture is near. So that's a pretty faulty comparison and a potentially dangerous one.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course we can see affects of mass pollution for one, in our poisoned food/water and deaths of animal species directly connected with pollution, while absolutely nothing has happened to suggest a rapture is near. So that's a pretty faulty comparison and a potentially dangerous one.
Yes we see SOME effects, but the scientist keep getting the outcome and timeframe wrong. If they can't get that right, then something within the science they're using is off and I'm not going to panic until there's some evidence that they've figured out what it is/was and accounted for it. I mean Hell, the preachers were probably right at least once or twice about one of the church members getting over cancer or something like that...

Once your prediction about the outcome of something has been PROVEN wrong, you've got to start over from square one and reevaluate the subject not just push back the deadline. And if you've been proven wrong multiple times, you need to start your evaluation from a slightly different direction rather than beginning with the exact same mindset and opening steps.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes we see SOME effects, but the scientist keep getting the outcome and timeframe wrong. If they can't get that right, then something within the science they're using is off and I'm not going to panic until there's some evidence that they've figured out what it is/was and accounted for it. I mean Hell, the preachers were probably right at least once or twice about one of the church members getting over cancer or something like that...

Once your prediction about the outcome of something has been PROVEN wrong, you've got to start over from square one and reevaluate the subject not just push back the deadline. And if you've been proven wrong multiple times, you need to start your evaluation from a slightly different direction rather than beginning with the exact same mindset and opening steps. So it seems you're unwilling to do anything until the house is already burned down as a pile of ash is the only proof you'll accept, not the warnings from the fire marshal saying "yeah, don't have so many plugs in a single outlet, it could cause a fire". Not sure that's a good strategy, the ash strategy.

Another way to look at it, taking measures but nothing happens as it's all just a "Chinese Hoax", means we've made changes and spent money. As a side affect, we probably have less overall pollution. Not doing anything and it turns out all these scientist were onto something and it's all true, future generations are severely ****ed.

I'll give you some credit though, you didn't use the lazy "It's in God's hands!" dismissal.

Was anyone aware all the hottest years have been 12, 30 and 70 years ago?

Originally posted by Robtard
So it seems you're unwilling to do anything until the house is already burned down as a pile of ash is the only proof you'll accept, not the warnings from the fire marshal saying "yeah, don't have so many plugs in a single outlet, it could cause a fire". Not sure that's a good strategy, the ash strategy.

Another way to look at it, taking measures but nothing happens as it's all just a "Chinese Hoax", means we've made changes and spent money. As a side affect, we probably have less overall pollution. Not doing anything and it turns out all these scientist were onto something and it's all true, future generations are severely ****ed.

I'll give you some credit though, you didn't use the lazy "It's in God's hands!" dismissal.
I'm unwilling to do anythin until the Firemen(who've been proven wrong repeatedly) show some concrete evidence that there's a serious threat of fire. I myself am poor and don't support anything that might cost me money unless there's a solid reason for me to shell out the cash. So if the changes involve any increase to my cost of living whatsoever, then yeah I'm against it.

I do understand your reasoning though. A lot of religious people feel the same way "If there's no God then I've lost nothing but the extra effort of living my life religiously, but if there is then I'm covered when I die".

Except of course you're not solely burdening the cost of a power-strip. It would quit literally cost you just a few cents, your life wouldn't change much, if at all :/

Originally posted by Sable
Was anyone aware all the hottest years have been 12, 30 and 70 years ago?

I bet you the Chinese knew when they made up the Climate Change hoax

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course you're not solely burdening the cost of a power-strip. It would quit literally cost you just a few cents, your life wouldn't change much, if at all :/
Hey if they can concretely prove that the measures they want to take will cost me less than an extra buck spent over the course of my entire life I might support them. But between tax increases to make the change and an increase in my utility bill I somehow suspect that's not the case. I have 2 kids and both are low/mid functioning autistics so there's little/no chance of me ever ending up with grandkids. My responsibilities are to them and myself alone, I'm not going to support anything that theoretically takes away from them for the benefit of anyone else's great grandchildren.

Originally posted by Robtard
I bet you the Chinese knew when they made up the Climate Change hoax

But where you aware its cooling off, and the earths hottest years are 12, 30 and 70 years ago?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Hey if they can concretely prove that the measures they want to take will cost me less than an extra buck spent over the course of my entire life I might support them. But between tax increases to make the change and an increase in my utility bill I somehow suspect that's not the case. I have 2 kids and both are low/mid functioning autistics so there's little/no chance of me ever ending up with grandkids. My responsibilities are to them and myself alone, I'm not going to support anything that theoretically takes away from them for the benefit of anyone else's great grandchildren.

The changes proposed now are very gradual and you'd barely feel it, if at all, as noted, no one sensible is saying we're stopping driving cars tomorrow and running factories on rainbows. Waiting until the shit hits the fan though and fecal matter gets flung all around/on enveryone, then changes would be drastic and you'd most definitely feel that along with your autistic twins. Since you only care about yourself as Jesus intended. (kudos though, that autistic part was funny)

Originally posted by Robtard
The changes proposed now are very gradual and you'd barely feel it, if at all, as noted, no one sensible is saying we're stopping driving cars tomorrow and running factories on rainbows. Waiting until the shit hits the fan though and fecal matter gets flung all around/on enveryone, then changes would be drastic and you'd most definitely feel that along with your autistic twins. Since you only care about yourself as Jesus intended. (kudos though, that autistic part was funny)
My kids are in fact austistic. You don't have to believe me if you choose not to, but it was a fact not a joke. But I never said they were twins. David's 13 and Ariel's 8.

Originally posted by Sable
But where you aware its cooling off, and the earths hottest years are 12, 30 and 70 years ago?

So it's actually Global Cooling? Are you the Mirror Universe version of Al Gore? That would be Al Gore with a goatee.

Originally posted by darthgoober
My kids are in fact austistic. You don't have to believe me if you choose not to, but it was a fact not a joke. But I never said they were twins. David's 13 and Ariel's 8.

Wasn't aware, thought you were using an extreme example to illustrate a point.

Still, what I said doesn't change. Now is more sensible than waiting until it's too late. To go back to the fire comparison. A power strip is cheaper than rebuilding a house that wasn't insured.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's actually Global Cooling? Are you the Mirror Universe version of Al Gore? That would be Al Gore with a goatee.

Al Gores movies have completly flopped. Supposidly according to polls a majority of people believe in global warming but when presented with a movie that caters to them, they dont support it. His latest movie was a flop.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's actually Global Cooling? Are you the Mirror Universe version of Al Gore? That would be Al Gore with a goatee.

No, he's just incorrect.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

"Climate change skeptics have pointed to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Choosing the year 1934 is an obvious example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. In fact they have to cherry pick both a location (the U.S.) and a year (1934) to find data that is far from the global trend. Globally, the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, so far."

Originally posted by Sable
Al Gores movies have completly flopped. Supposidly according to polls a majority of people believe in global warming but when presented with a movie that caters to them, they dont support it. His latest movie was a flop.

I'm sure Al Gore is devastated by this news. But his first film made around 50 million on a 2million budget. Not too shabby.

2005 was the hottest year.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't aware, thought you were using an extreme example to illustrate a point.

Still, what I said doesn't change. Now is more sensible than waiting until it's too late. To go back to the fire comparison. A power strip is cheaper than rebuilding a house that wasn't insured.
No it's true here's another quote from me just so you don't think it's something I'm making it up on the fly...

Originally posted by darthgoober
My name is David.
I'm 36 years old.
2 kids, both autistic(and most in my life suspect that I'm somewhere on the spectrum as well).
Joined the forum 11 years ago
I created the Battlezone top to bottom and won the first BZ ever.
Former tourney champion.

And I'mevryone's favorite poster whether they want to admit it or not

When they can actually show me that there's something to be alarmed about within my kids lifetimes, I'll worry. But again, they've been wrong repeatedly so I'm not about to voluntrily alter my lifestyle in any way that make our lives more difficult/complicated than they already are until they show that they have the science down pat on the subject. I altered my lifestyle for years when I was younger because of all the eco friendly cries about things like deforestation, recycling, and global warming only to later find out that a lot of the stuff they were saying was BS. I'm not about to do it again now that I have disabled children to look after in the present.

Originally posted by BackFire
global trend.

"global mean temperature" is the term. since they are unable/unwilling to comprehend it's meaning, they declare victory.

Originally posted by darthgoober
No it's true here's another quote from me just so you don't think it's something I'm making it up on the fly...



When they can actually show me that there's something to be alarmed about within my kids lifetimes, I'll worry. But again, they've been wrong repeatedly so I'm not about to voluntrily alter my lifestyle in any way that make our lives more difficult/complicated than they already are until they show that they have the science down pat on the subject. I altered my lifestyle for years when I was younger because of all the eco friendly cries about things like deforestation, recycling, and global warming only to later find out that a lot of the stuff they were saying was BS. I'm not about to do it again now that I have disabled children to look after in the present.

I believed you the first time you explained.

Okay then. Good talk regardless.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, he's just incorrect.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

"Climate change skeptics have pointed to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Choosing the year 1934 is an obvious example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. In fact they have to cherry pick both a location (the U.S.) and a year (1934) to find data that is far from the global trend. Globally, the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, so far."

Hmmm. What a weird thing to lie and cherry pick about.

Is 2017 on the path to be the hottest? Cos if so, I see an odd trend and I'm not even a real super-scientist

Originally posted by Robtard
I believed you the first time you explained.

Okay then. Good talk regardless.
Cool thanks. I just didn't want to leave any lingering doubt in your mind about it.

Oh yeah, def a good talk. I was in no way suggesting that everyone should start calling BS about climate change, I was only explaining how some people like myself might still be hesitant to accept many of the changes in policy being proposed.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm actually skeptical about the implications and severity of the threat because the hard core pushers of the idea keep getting the effects wrong.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I was only explaining how some people like myself might still be hesitant to accept many of the changes in policy being proposed.

it's like this: why take a chance?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's like this: why take a chance?
Are you a hardcore Christian?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Are you a hardcore Christian?

nope. raised catholic, artheist now. you wont catch me desecrating any holy relics, though. because...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's like this: why take a chance?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. raised catholic, artheist now. you wont catch me desecrating any holy relics, though. because...
Yes but aren't you taking the chance just by being an Atheist? I mean Hell is supposed to be forever... why risk it when you could die in 5 minutes?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes but aren't you taking the chance just by being an Athiest?

i suppose, but i feel that its more like i'm hedging my bets instead of taking a reckless gamble on one option because its popular/easier/cheaper.

also if there was 1/1000th of empirical evidence of god's existence as there is for climate change, i'm pretty sure i'd have a way different attitude.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i suppose, but i feel that its more like i'm hedging my bets instead of taking a reckless gamble on one option because its popular/easier/cheaper.

also if there was 1/1000th of empirical evidence of god's existence as there is for climate change, i'm pretty sure i'd have a way different attitude.
Yes but as an atheist am I correct in assume you're a big proponent of the scientific method? Well if a group of scientist are repeadly proven wrong in their predictions of a particular outcome, how much credit do you think their currently predicted outcomes that use the same logic and types of evidence should be given?

"proven wrong" is too non-specific. example: if they called for a .03% rise in GMT and it turned out to be .025%, technically that calculation was proven wrong while the actual data validates the whole concept.

so i need specifics before i answer anything in that ballpark.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"proven wrong" is too non-specific. example: if they called for a .03% rise in GMT and it turned out to be .025%, technically that calculation was proven wrong while the actual data validates the whole concept.

so i need specifics before i answer anything in that ballpark.
Well in the 70s they proposed global cooling could start as early in the late 80s... that didn't happen. In the 80s when they realized they were wrong the changed the term to global warming and suggest that the world would become so much hotter by 2000 that new deserts would start to form... that didn't happen. Since then they've been saying the ice caps would continue to gradually shrink until they disappeared but in 2013 NASA satelite images revealed that the southern ice cap was bigger than had EVER been recorded. In fact in 2009 Al Gore went on record as saying that withing 7 years the norther ice cap would be completely gone... and it's not.

thats kinda like mocking the weatherman because we got 2 inches of snow instead of 12, and then concluding that it's never gonna snow again. NASA has the data, and there has been a long-rising trend in global mean temperature. even if you didn't want to bother looking it up, you can just check the hundreds of news articles about arctic melting.

so we know it's happening but we're not all 100% agreed that we caused it. again i say: why take a chance? if you find a particular piece of legislation to be grossly presumptuous and unsustainable, that's a whole other matter.

also, the term 'global warming' had to be changed to "climate change" because people wouldn't cease with the "snow flurry in texas = global warming debunked" trope.

When their house is ashes, they'll just go "how were we supposed to know?". Robtard will look down and laugh at them.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise

I'm sure it'll be fine....

Originally posted by jaden101
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise

I'm sure it'll be fine....

TBF, the very rich living at the top floors of the expensive condones have nothing to fear from rising sea levels.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
thats kinda like mocking the weatherman because we got 2 inches of snow instead of 12, and then concluding that it's never gonna snow again. NASA has the data, and there has been a long-rising trend in global mean temperature. even if you didn't want to bother looking it up, you can just check the hundreds of news articles about arctic melting.

so we know it's happening but we're not all 100% agreed that we caused it. again i say: why take a chance? if you find a particular piece of legislation to be grossly presumptuous and unsustainable, that's a whole other matter.

also, the term 'global warming' had to be changed to "climate change" because people wouldn't cease with the "snow flurry in texas = global warming debunked" trope.
I do in fact mock the weatherman when he's wrong and currently have no faith in any of them either. I never make definitive plans based on their predictions. The great thing about science is that once you truly understand the science you can predict outcomes with 100% accuracy because science is constant, unchanging, and easily predictable once every variable is accounted for. If it's not all those it's not really science, it's just some educated guesses. And there have been so many scientific "facts" proven to be mistakes based on false assumptions and/or outright lies/hoaxes I have no faith left unless the science meets those 3 prerequisites. So until they crack the environmental code so to speak, I'm not voluntarily supporting anything that'll cause me to fork over any extra money or devote any time to it. Sorry but things like pot killing braincells, recycling plastic having any real environmental impact, and other such nonsense have used up every f*ck I had to give unless/until there's concrete evidence.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, just stop. You do not want an actual discussion on this lol. None of you do and I can tell just by the circle jerk that immediately started. Nobody wanted to engage, they just wanted to leave snotty remarks.

Which is fine, the board is near dead, but lets not deny it. So I take it you don't believe in climate change?

Do I believe in Cllimate Change? Yes.

Do I belive in the Leftist Progressive Lie Machine that over hypes and tries to churn up the Fear about this nonburger to push their Fascist Agenda.

OH HELL YES!

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm actually skeptical about the implications and severity of the threat because the hard core pushers of the idea keep getting the effects wrong. The world didn't start towards an ice age in the late 80s like they suggested in the 70s. The world didn't become unbearably hotter with new deserts forming by 2000 like they suggested in the late 80s once they realized they were wrong about global cooling. Despite all the talk about the ice caps disappearing for decades, in 2013 the southern ice cap was bigger than had ever been recorded according to NASA satellite reports. In 2009 Al Gore that the north ice cap would be completely melted within 7 years... and it's not.

I'm not saying that there's nothing happening, but the fact of the matter is that people obviously don't know enough about how the whole system works together to scare me in regards to their predicted consequences. At this point they seem a lot like those preachers who keep predicting the rapture on a specific day so everyone in his churge gears up and waits for it... and then when it doesn't happen the preacher makes another prediction and everyone does it again and the cycle just goes on and on. I believe in God but there's no way I'm going to sell all my stuff and go out in field and wait for him. But in the 1960s!

I feel like people don't grasp the concept that science progresses over time, or that Al Gore isn't a scientist, or that recent climate models have been correct year on year.

Fyi: The ice caps are are still dissappearing, despite gains in Antartica.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm actually skeptical about the implications and severity of the threat because the hard core pushers of the idea keep getting the effects wrong. The world didn't start towards an ice age in the late 80s like they suggested in the 70s. The world didn't become unbearably hotter with new deserts forming by 2000 like they suggested in the late 80s once they realized they were wrong about global cooling. Despite all the talk about the ice caps disappearing for decades, in 2013 the southern ice cap was bigger than had ever been recorded according to NASA satellite reports. In 2009 Al Gore that the north ice cap would be completely melted within 7 years... and it's not.

I'm not saying that there's nothing happening, but the fact of the matter is that people obviously don't know enough about how the whole system works together to scare me in regards to their predicted consequences. At this point they seem a lot like those preachers who keep predicting the rapture on a specific day so everyone in his churge gears up and waits for it... and then when it doesn't happen the preacher makes another prediction and everyone does it again and the cycle just goes on and on. I believe in God but there's no way I'm going to sell all my stuff and go out in field and wait for him. The actual effects are certainly the hardest thing to pin point in advance, but that's never been a particularly compelling argument to me. I've heard some people say maybe things will be better with global warming... frankly that's not the sort of thing I'd gamble on, given the choice.

And there is more than one reason for us to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies... so I really am pretty disappointed at our general failure to tackle this problem to the extent that I believe we can.

Where I think there is a reasonable debate is what approach do we take to making this transition. I generally have little faith in the conservationist methods of basically penalizing companies for carbon emissions. This forces a trade off between economy and environment, which is often necessary, but in a sort of catastrophic scenario like this I don't see that approach realistically reversing the general trend of climate change before irreparable damage is done.

Thus, I think the only solution is an investment in the kind of technology that will eventually produce a real viable alternative to the current oil and gas based infrastructure. I think about things like the Atom bomb... or going to the moon... it seems like when we face an existential threat in the form of a foreign boogeyman, we have the capacity to pour a bunch of money into the necessary science and render a result in a relatively timely manner. I don't feel this is being done with climate change/renewable energy. And I can't think of a more worthy candidate for such a campaign. But unfortunately abstract ecological threats don't seem to resonate and put the fire under people's asses as well as scary looking Nazi's/Commies marching in formation.

brvTS01NHdU

Climate conditions will continue to change over time - humans in the picture or not.

The best we can do is to learn to adapt. However, if somebody thinks that we can stop global warming or this phenomenon is under our control - he has bought into leftist propaganda.

This story is just like that of ozone hole - a phenomenon that completely natural but two scientists claimed otherwise and got Pulitzer price for it.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Do I believe in Cllimate Change? Yes.

Do I belive in the Leftist Progressive Lie Machine that over hypes and tries to churn up the Fear about this nonburger to push their Fascist Agenda.

OH HELL YES!

but do you think that releasing carbon in the atmosphere has an impact on how much heat the atmosphere retains from the sun?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
but do you think that releasing carbon in the atmosphere has an impact on how much heat the atmosphere retains from the sun?
Problem is that CO2 levels do not necessarily correlate with periods of global warming because it is not the exclusive driver of climate change. Earth has a mechanism to absorb CO2 emissions in large quantities and even re-adjust its environment when subjected to anomalies.

Climate change is a very complex phenomenon; a large number of factors are involved including movements of Earth and Solar activity.

In-fact, Sun has the power to cook Earth with its powerful emissions.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143272-americans-already-feeling-effects-of-climate-change-says-report/But I thought it was snowing in Texas.

Did you know, water vapor is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth's surface?

Originally posted by darthgoober
The great thing about science is that once you truly understand the science you can predict outcomes with 100% accuracy because science is constant, unchanging, and easily predictable once every variable is accounted for.

Those are some batshit crazy settings you are using to trust science. The idea of "every variable is accounted for" is night impossible and cannot be proven at all. What we use to describe the universe (among other things) are mathematical models that never change because we invented them so they don't change, science is consistent for conventional reasons. Heck, there are even good arguments that make the idea of consistent/unchanging maths not allowing to demostrate everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

I'm just making this note because a lot of people consistently misrepresent how science works, not as an excuse for people to follow shitty climate predicting models.

I love it when the Leftist EnviroNazis go on their rants about how Carbon Dioxide is BAD!

Lol!

Carbon dioxide makes the earth greener. But they didnt know that, anything with a unusual sounding name must be bad. But somehow drinking flouride must be good cause someone said so.

Only in bizzaro word is carbon dioxide bad and flouride good, only a stupid government could get its stupid people to believe it.

nobody says carbon dioxide is "bad". the problem is that we're producing too much of it.

Scientists (I hate using that general term fyi) are saying the planet is greener then ever before. More Co2 means more oxygen from plants.

Originally posted by Sable
Scientists (I hate using that general term fyi) are saying the planet is greener then ever before. More Co2 means more oxygen from plants.
wanna cite that?

Originally posted by Sable
Scientists (I hate using that general term fyi) are saying the planet is greener then ever before. More Co2 means more oxygen from plants.

One time oxygen nearly killed every living thing on the planet. BAN OXYGEN NOW


SCIENCE!