Engage the shitstorm!
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/202982-2-princetons-galileo-atomic-physicist-defies-climate-change-consensus-blasts-propaganda/
Anyone who has taking a high school science class could have told you that! At someone will listen to this guy.
The whole, "CO2 is terrible," thing is a load of BS, and most people who are actually educated in science realize that, but other greenhouse gases (such as methane) ARE horrible for the atmosphere. Basically, CO2 is almost harmless, but other greenhouse gases are (though how much is debatable) slowly raising the temperature. TL;DR: I agree with the professor on everything I said, but I think he should have actually discussed how bad other air pollutants are.
This is what we in Thd Netherlands would call a chicken and egg discussion. At places where temperature is higher, more water will evaporate, as temperature decreases with increasing altitude, this water will form water vapor, aka clouds. These will reflect heat to the earth more than filtering sunlight, depending of course on the composition of the cloud.
So while it is true that increased evaporation will strengthen warning, it does not mean other factors are wrongfully attributed to GW.
And seriously: the climate is changing. At the end of October I was still walking outside in a T-shirt. That's not how it used to be a decade or so ago here in The Netherlands.
Here is a pic from my home office vantage point this morning. Climate change is legit....
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyp8m1hfvl6l185/2014-11-17%2007.26.23.jpg?dl=0
And yes some gypsies moved in across from me apparently. They have that camper out front and 2 or 3 trucks there, all with the truck bed campers. I don't know what the f is going on over there with that many people in that little house....
Yeah California is in its worst drought ever
Climate isn't changing at all. 😒
Taysby, why are you instigating? It's one thing to promote intelligent debate, but you're just saying stuff and starting .poo. for the sake of saying stuff and starting .poo. here. Even the title of the thread tells us you're only causing ruckus because you're bored.
What's the point? Don't waste the time on trolling. Do something productive, like a hobby or learning an instrument instead.
Quote from: Gorzo on November 17, 2014, 07:02:34 PM
Taysby, why are you instigating? It's one thing to promote intelligent debate, but you're just saying stuff and starting .poo. for the sake of saying stuff and starting .poo. here. Even the title of the thread tells us you're only causing ruckus because you're bored.
What's the point? Don't waste the time on trolling. Do something productive, like a hobby or learning an instrument instead.
Did you read the article? The title is probably there because people still believe that global warming is a man made-phenomena, and they will jump at your throat if you say otherwise.
"I'm bored, engage the shitstorm" isn't the start of an intelligent debate, it's a troll.
Don't hand me cow pie on a plate and call it foie gras. This thread wasn't made for debate. ;)
Quote from: Gorzo on November 17, 2014, 09:44:37 PM
"I'm bored, engage the shitstorm" isn't the start of an intelligent debate, it's a troll.
Don't hand me cow pie on a plate and call it foie gras. This thread wasn't made for debate. ;)
That's just your opinion, though. It's still a debate. I'm fairly certain "Engage the Shitstorm" will attract more viewers and potential candidates for debate than "This man said what I learned in school".
And foie gras is some nasty, cruel stuff, man.
Attracting viewers shouldn't be the focus of debate in the first place. The issue and the facts should be.
But yes, foil gras is gross, but it's better than turds on a plate. Kind of like how .politics. should be Vs what we have now... Real .politics. aren't pretty but at least they're edible, instead we're forced to choke on the unbearable stink of the failure we call .politics. now.
IJ review is by nature a conservative/right Wing/republican agenda blog.
When you post evidence for a debate, please let it be viewable on more than one channel, one source just doesn't feel reputable, especially a site that is considered the republican answer to upworthy.com
Quote from: Gorzo on November 17, 2014, 10:00:41 PM
Attracting viewers shouldn't be the focus of debate in the first place. The issue and the facts should be.
But yes, foil gras is gross, but it's better than turds on a plate. Kind of like how .politics. should be Vs what we have now... Real .politics. aren't pretty but at least they're edible, instead we're forced to choke on the unbearable stink of the failure we call .politics. now.
Yeah. Sorry I came off as rude. I thought you were referring to the article at first. There isn't anything we can do to combat global warming, as it is a naturally occurring event, but we can combat the negative and false perceptions given to it.
Quote from: Taysby on November 17, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
@gorzo. Engage the shitstorm was supposed to be a lighthearted joke, because that's what's happened with most debates.
@muggy. Can you disprove him?
I'm asking for a source that is beyond one curved website. If this was substantial, it would be blasting everywhere, not an up worthy website.
You realize this guy mentions one item not being the main cause of GW, but its not even any proof he gives, he just discusses and adds to his theory. Less than a page for an article does not really suffice for evidence. And please, don't say watch a video, if its in a video, it should be transcribed or exist in literary form already.
Compound factors are what cause global warming, not just car emissions and people breathing. The amount of deforestation, pollutants from all forms of industry and overpopulation are additional causes of GW. He's merely stating CO2 isn't the primary cause of GW. I don't even see one mention of carbon monoxide in the article, which is a deadly gas for us that is affecting the lifespan of other gases in our ozone layer, messing up the natural balance created over time. Just to point out once again, CO is not CO2.
Climate change has been happening, but you are a little young to actually notice the differences in temperature averages in regions. You've witnessed about less than a decade of climate change that you may have actually noticed. Others have seen 20-40 years of change.
I've lived in California my whole life. Not only is the direct sun much hotter now, less clouds form, far more smoggy days, longer summers, shorter winters, lack of rain, longer fire seasons. I believe all of this is a reason to believe in climate change. Burbank, CA used to peak around 105* in the 90s on average, now it peaks around 110*.
TLDR
He proved nothing, he's just discussing his theory. So therefore, nothing to disprove.
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on November 18, 2014, 12:27:20 AM
You realize this guy mentions one item not being the main cause of GW, but its not even any proof he gives, he just discusses and adds to his theory. Less than a page for an article does not really suffice for evidence. And please, don't say watch a video, if its in a video, it should be transcribed or exist in literary form already.
Compound factors are what cause global warming, not just car emissions and people breathing. The amount of deforestation, pollutants from all forms of industry and overpopulation are additional causes of GW. He's merely stating CO2 isn't the primary cause of GW. I don't even see one mention of carbon monoxide in the article, which is a deadly gas for us that is affecting the lifespan of other gases in our ozone layer, messing up the natural balance created over time. Just to point out once again, CO is not CO2.
Climate change has been happening, but you are a little young to actually notice the differences in temperature averages in regions. You've witnessed about less than a decade of climate change that you may have actually noticed. Others have seen 20-40 years of change.
I've lived in California my whole life. Not only is the direct sun much hotter now, less clouds form, far more smoggy days, longer summers, shorter winters, lack of rain, longer fire seasons. I believe all of this is a reason to believe in climate change. Burbank, CA used to peak around 105* in the 90s on average, now it peaks around 110*.
TLDR
He proved nothing, he's just discussing his theory. So therefore, nothing to disprove.
This is true
One dude can say that his models show no global warming, but 97% of scientists agree that some sort of climate change is happening and humans are to blame. It's sad that even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that we have climate change, and yet idiots who aren't educated (not this particular professor, but hundreds of politicians) think they know better.
Here is a clip from the Daily Show in which Jon Stewart discusses climate change, it's worth the watch, as he features an idiotic Congressman arguing with climate experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI
Last Week Tonight has some interesting commentary too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Tell that to the polar bears who are drowning
He has proved nothing, it says he dicusses
Discussion is not proof of anything
Also, polar bears migrate south now as the arctic is melting and they have no where to walk "north"
Polar bears have been migrating south and mating with grizzlies, creating super bears. This wouldn't even happen if GW wasn't happening and forcing polar bears out of their homes.
Like I said, find other sources, not your half page discussion statement.
Well if you had SOME common knowledge of GW you wouldn't be so snarky to assume that CO2 is the #1 opponent. Oh wait...
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 12:22:10 PM
He put together a graph of the average temperature of the earth over time. The line of best fit has a slope of 0. The earth is therefore not getting warmer
HE HAS A GRAPH CALL THE FACT POLICE!!!
Becuz graphs = facts
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpfu8pz7kity8y2/Photo%20Nov%2018%2C%209%2033%2023%20AM.png?dl=0
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 02:50:30 PM
My point was that if you look at the temperature swings (it swung like 5 degrees below average and 5 degrees above average every year or so) a slow raise in temperature sure seems like something that would happen naturally.
Lmao not really. Why does it seem liks the destruction of the earth due to an unbalance in once balanced gasses happened naturally?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk
I don't think there's anyone on the planet who can explain science better than Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
"due to increased levels of co2"
BECAUSE THAT IS ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE LARGER PROBLEM, YOU .loving. IDIOT. CO2 might not be the no. 1 cause, but the increased levels of multiple different gases in our atmosphere is leading to an overall warmer (although only slightly) climate.
@Muggy: That is the best graph I have seen this year.
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on November 18, 2014, 09:45:14 PM
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
"due to increased levels of co2"
BECAUSE THAT IS ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE LARGER PROBLEM, YOU .loving. IDIOT. CO2 might not be the no. 1 cause, but the increased levels of multiple different gases in our atmosphere is leading to an overall warmer (although only slightly) climate.
@Muggy: That is the best graph I have seen this year.
That is sly what Neil degrasse Tyson said, and I thought we had just agreed that co2 has nothing to do with it. You guys keep changing your minds
Science doesn't change that quickly: I agreed that Co2 isn't the main problem and gets too much press, but I never said Co2 wasn't a problem at all.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on November 18, 2014, 10:20:35 PM
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on November 18, 2014, 09:45:14 PM
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
"due to increased levels of co2"
BECAUSE THAT IS ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE LARGER PROBLEM, YOU .loving. IDIOT. CO2 might not be the no. 1 cause, but the increased levels of multiple different gases in our atmosphere is leading to an overall warmer (although only slightly) climate.
@Muggy: That is the best graph I have seen this year.
That is sly what Neil degrasse Tyson said, and I thought we had just agreed that co2 has nothing to do with it. You guys keep changing your minds
Science doesn't change that quickly: I agreed that Co2 isn't the main problem and gets too much press, but I never said Co2 wasn't a problem at all.
It doesn't really matter what the main problem is. All we really need to know is that humans are causing a lot of the problem.
Quote from: the_intelligentleman on November 18, 2014, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on November 18, 2014, 10:20:35 PM
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on November 18, 2014, 09:45:14 PM
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
"due to increased levels of co2"
BECAUSE THAT IS ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE LARGER PROBLEM, YOU .loving. IDIOT. CO2 might not be the no. 1 cause, but the increased levels of multiple different gases in our atmosphere is leading to an overall warmer (although only slightly) climate.
@Muggy: That is the best graph I have seen this year.
That is sly what Neil degrasse Tyson said, and I thought we had just agreed that co2 has nothing to do with it. You guys keep changing your minds
Science doesn't change that quickly: I agreed that Co2 isn't the main problem and gets too much press, but I never said Co2 wasn't a problem at all.
It doesn't really matter what the main problem is. All we really need to know is that humans are causing a lot of the problem.
Exactly, either way you see the Co2 "debate," other gases such as methane are undeniably causing damage and deforestation is horrible.
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 10:58:42 PM
We agree that cutting down 100% of forests are bad, but most logging only removes 1/3 of the trees, and it makes so more plant life can grow and it's better environment for the animals
Yes, because people follow the laws we create /sarcasm
Quote from: MuggyWuggy on November 18, 2014, 12:09:04 PM
Polar bears have been migrating south and mating with grizzlies, creating super bears.
Woah, super bears? :D
10/10 would buy
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 11:07:19 PM
Up on cedar mountain (where I go deer hitting) they did some logging. It drastically improved the environment for the deer. They do clear cut in a couple spots so meadows can form and support that life.
Sure it's great for that life. But what about all the other live that was living there already. Now they have been disturbed.
So let me get this straight.
The place you go deer hunting starts running out of deer. And the answer the community came to was something other than "stop killing too many deer."
I'm not even talking about ethics of hunting, here. I'm just not understanding how altering an entire ecosystem is the response to over-hunting instead of easing off the hunting and letting the deer repopulate.
Quote from: Taysby on November 18, 2014, 11:07:19 PM
Up on cedar mountain (where I go deer hitting) they did some logging. It drastically improved the environment for the deer. They do clear cut in a couple spots so meadows can form and support that life.
Logging in the U.S. is highly regulated. Now in other countries, their logging standards piss me off. >:(
I'd like to place my vote for Deer Hitting to become an Olympic sport.
Gotcha. I made an assumption. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Lets assume things like deforestation when brought up in a topic like this are referring to actual crisis situations where national forest are being lost. Lets take the amazon rainforest for example. Not small regulated areas, but actual deforestation that normally ends up as residential and urban developments, displacing the natural wildlife.
My academic bowl coach brought up global warming, and I would like to thank Taysby for not being him. He was an absolute dick, laughing at my face, saying all of my facts (which I check twice, so they were correct) weren't true (without actually backing up his claims), and all of his "facts" were absolute bullshit (I checked). So thank you Taysby, for actually debating and not just rejecting facts in favor of the ones you pull out of your ass.