It's Boring on Here

[Taysby]

Engage the shitstorm!
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/202982-2-princetons-galileo-atomic-physicist-defies-climate-change-consensus-blasts-propaganda/

[NovusOrbis]

Anyone who has taking a high school science class could have told you that! At someone will listen to this guy.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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.

[cltrn81]

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....

[MuggyWuggy]

Yeah California is in its worst drought ever

Climate isn't changing at all. 😒

[Gorzo]

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.

[NovusOrbis]

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.

[Gorzo]

"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.

[NovusOrbis]

"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.

[Gorzo]

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.

[MuggyWuggy]

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

[NovusOrbis]

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.

[MuggyWuggy]

@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.

[MuggyWuggy]

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.