Here is some liberal SCIENCE FICTION for you!!!
- Thread starter WhatWouldObamaDo
- Start date
Does no one understand sarcasm anymore? Did they stop teaching that class in grade school?
As was already stated by Joe's, there is more than the one consensus number you stated, and the overwhelming majority of scientists have proven again and again that man made global warming is a fact. Why you prefer to quibble over the exact number is irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm making fun of you.
How much of the last 150 years warming (whatever number you want to use, I'd say around 1*C) is anthropological? what %?
You are making yourself look really silly here. Again, you don't even know the relevant questions. The truth is, when you boil it down, the 97% consensus applies to a very minor increase in warming with some agreement that it is contributed to in some way by man made factors. What you fail to understand is the implications of this claim. In other words, this consensus in no way justifies the type of drastic action suggested by the liberal climate nuts.
You are truly a sheeple.
Get your shit straight. I was correct for Antarctic SEA ice. You brought in the other crap.
You're right, let's continue doing nothing. I'm sure your grandkids will fix it.
And by this post, you confirm sir, that it is you that is one of the "sheeple." Your mind has been made up on this issue not by you having any understanding of it or the science behind it, but solely on the politically motivated lies spewed by the wingnut echo chamber. It's a sad day for our country when policies are not grounded in scientific facts, but weak minded individuals like yourself allow yourself to be used to advance the greedy ambitions of the few over the good of the earth and all its lifeforms for generations to come.
So these sources:
Guessing this guy you dismiss as well:
Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”
Or this lady:
Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”
Or this guy:
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
Of course, that is not the only option or alternative, but anything requiring some nuance or subtlety is obviously beyond your grasp. You need to stay in the kiddie pool.
What is your problem with these statements?
Do you even understand what they were saying?
Googling and cut-and-pasting are not synonymous with understanding.
Here you go sport.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
The fact is, you and the others on this board had and have absolutely no idea where the 97% number came from and what it was based on. In the attached link, there are citations and links to (ironically) 97 articles, most of which are peer reviewed, that thoroughly debunk the 97% claim. As these show, Cook (who originally came up with the 97% number) deliberately mis-classified the position of many of the scientist that he lumped into the 97%.
Of course, as mentioned above, that is not event the main problem. The main problem is the false conclusion that the left always seeks to draw: That any evidence of climate change demands extreme solutions that will wreck economic growth and consumer welfare, and take civilization back a few generations.
It is amazing how ill-informed the left is on this.
What are you even talking about? Nothing you've said has been nuanced or subtle. You brought up some random figure that you can't back up with anything. When multiple posters pointed out your post's inaccuracies you started insulting people, which it par for the course for climate change deniers.
Step 1: Bring up false or misleading statistics
Step 2: Ignore being proven wrong
Step 3: State that those who have proven you wrong are ignoring the "data" you failed to provide
Step 4: Lob insults
So, the zero-sum game you propose is that we can either ruin the economy or ruin the planet. There's nothing in between?
God, the ignorance is baffling.
You may want to re-consider this after you read the link I attached. You are really making yourself look dumb in this thread. You have done nothing but parrot others, and have not even understood those posts. The next time you provide any "data" will be the first.
Its hard to imagine just how dumb one would have to be to make such an interpretation of my post. You really need to stop digging.
Christ, dipshit, the point is that it doesn't matter if it's exactly 97%. The point is the vast majority of scientists agree that man made climate change is real, and that we need to do something about it before we render parts of this planet uninhabitable. Meanwhile moron deniers like you want to argue semantics.
LOL. You don't even get how dumb you continue to look. No, you still don't get the point, and keep missing it. And, nothing I have posted suggest I am a denier.
Maybe have someone else read the link I posted, and explain it to you, using short words, and maybe some pictures. I doubt it will work, but who knows.
What I'm getting is that you're not really making an argument, you're just arguing. I'm done feeding you, troll.
Now I get it! You're brownstar's new handle. Sorry I wasted my time.
Do you seriously NOT understand the difference between peer-reviewed scientific papers and opinions? Offering you the chance to try again seems a waste.
Get your shit straight. I was correct for Antarctic SEA ice. You brought in the other crap.
You get your shit straight.
You falsely asserted Arctic ice was increasing. I corrected you that it is not; it is disappearing very quickly.
Antarctic sea ice is moderately increasing, which is mostly irrelevant, because it is an ocean surrounding land ice, not an open ocean of sea ice. And part of the reason that it is increasing is due to land ice losses, with the melting land ice freshening the seawater and making it easier to freeze it. (The inverse of this effect is why you pay taxes for the city and county to put down salt on the roads in the winter; those are fundamental physical chemistry principles regarding freezing point depression - Google it.)
Antarctic sea ice is less relevant in the scope of climate change (it can also go up/down due to variation in ocean currents).
Antarctic LAND ice is VERY relevant to climate and sea level rise. Arctic sea ice is also very relevant to climate, because a complete loss of Arctic sea ice narrows the gradients which drive the jetstream patterns that control our northern hemisphere weather; Antarctic sea ice has mostly no effect on our northern hemisphere weather patterns. Lumping it all together to claim 'no ice loss' because the Antarctic is seeing gains is a complete red herring argument. Not understanding the differences between Arctic/Antarctic sea/land ice demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.
I did you the courtesy of clicking your link.
Then I scanned the list looking for seemingly respectable sources.
So I eliminated the known propagandists for the Koch bros and Big Oil.
And I eliminated the articles from the John Bircher group that I recognized.
And I didn't waste my time with titles like "Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy."
And so on.
That winnowed it down to a tiny number.
Then I looked at a couple of those.
The result? These are not science articles. They are not rational discussions of the science by informed laymen. Even those associated with organizations that get the benefit of doubt - like The Guardian - turn out to be partisan hack op-eds and blogs by people whose agenda is transparent within a paragraph or 2.
It's easy to see why you would be a denier if these are your sources.
I suggest you try real scientists, not hacks, if you are interested in eventually understanding this fascinating and serious issue.
There appear to be a TOTAL of 3 'peer reviewed' articles in actual 'journals', TWO of which are in an ENERGY POLICY journal, probably not a great objective source on climate info.
Also, the 'paper' which the Energy Policy journal is referring to, was authored by Willie Soon, who has recently been reprimanded for NOT reporting funding coming from fossil fuel interests related to his work. You certainly CAN publish good science AND have funding from sources where a potential conflict may arise, BUT you MUST disclose it. Failing to disclose that conflict pretty much destroys his credibility and the credibility of your source (at least one of the 3; I don't have time to parse through all this BS).
But when you claim you have 97 'peer reviewed' sources, but have <3, you really look like an idiot.
LMAO!!!
That's an actual REFERENCE being used to discount the consensus???
Holy cow there are some uneducated people who post here....there have to be grade-schoolers who can discern better quality information....
Yep.LMAO!!!
That's an actual REFERENCE being used to discount the consensus???
Holy cow there are some uneducated people who post here....there have to be grade-schoolers who can discern better quality information....
I probably would have checked it out, figuring it might be comic relief, except that it was posted on WND.
It's not impossible that crap sites can sometimes host good news and analysis, but it certainly lowers the probability.
I was really disturbed, though by the number of known Koch-supported propaganda organs on that list. And even more disturbed by the John Bircher organization.
Have you read Merchants of Doubt or Dark Money? Strongly recommended. I thought I had a decent grasp on the opposition, but those 2 books blew me away. Names are named. I wouldn't have spotted so many of the propaganda sites last month.
THey are predictions that fell flat by highly regarded members that contribute to your GW\CC mantra. I read the original article I posted, then was told the article was a joke "not from a "journal" - yet those that contributed the "statements" are "experts".
Who are those mentioned that made the statements - do you not consider them at a high level within the GW\CC society? I guess not...
