Just so we're clear everyone on ISH is aware the earth is warming up - right?

[CavaliersFTW]

Global warming isn't a theory, it's an observation. It's a global average of temperatures recorded every year. It has nothing to do with the "weather" today or tomorrow, or having record lows or highs. It is just an average temperature over the course of a year.

And another observation is that of the past 100 years or so our rising temperatures aren't congruent with the more gradual changes the climate has undergone for the past few hundred thousand years - data which we can confidently collect through ice cores, fossilized tree species and rings and studying pollens and animal life in various layers of the earth. Even during ice age transition periods the climate wasn't rising in temperature every 10 or so years to the degree it is at this moment.

Everyone on ISH realizes this right?

And there is a connection that it is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human consumption. Greenhouse gases from various sources such as carbon emissions are being output at an insanely high rate that never was in the planets recent geologic past (by that I mean millions of years) - this production of man made greenhouse gases is also not a theory, it too is an observation. Smaller scale experiments allow scientists to duplicate and confirm with certainty the greenhouse gases that we are outputting warm environments as well as additional observations of how these gases in different concentrations affect other planets or isolated regions on our own planet. Those aforementioned ice cores have trapped gases of earth's atmosphere from all years up to several hundred thousand years back and we can track linearly the composition of our atmosphere and how it correlated to global temperature averages.

This stuff is entirely observation. Not theory. People who call it a theory are pigheadedly denying that it is an observation just like people out there who still believe the earth is flat. The "politics" that kick in are - what are we going to do about it? Anything? Should we? You guys can argue all you want about that, but global warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions isn't just a buzzword, idea, or a theory it's an observation.

[Real Men Wear Green]

EveryoneNever.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Global warming isn't a theory, it's an observation. It's a global average of temperatures recorded every year. It has nothing to do with the "weather" today or tomorrow, or having record lows or highs. It is just an average temperature over the course of a year.

And another observation is that of the past 100 years or so our rising temperatures aren't congruent with the more gradual changes the climate has undergone for the past few hundred thousand years - data which we can confidently collect through ice cores, fossilized tree species and rings and studying pollens and animal life in various layers of the earth. Even during ice age transition periods the climate wasn't rising in temperature every 10 or so years to the degree it is at this moment.

Everyone on ISH realizes this right?

And there is a connection that it is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human consumption. Greenhouse gases from various sources such as carbon emissions are being output at an insanely high rate that never was in the planets recent geologic past (by that I mean millions of years) - this production of man made greenhouse gases is also not a theory, it too is an observation. Smaller scale experiments allow scientists to duplicate and confirm with certainty the greenhouse gases that we are outputting warm environments as well as additional observations of how these gases in different concentrations affect other planets or isolated regions on our own planet. Those aforementioned ice cores have trapped gases of earth's atmosphere from all years up to several hundred thousand years back and we can track linearly the composition of our atmosphere and how it correlated to global temperature averages.

This stuff is entirely observation. Not theory. People who call it a theory are pigheadedly denying that it is an observation just like people out there who still believe the earth is flat. The "politics" that kick in are - what are we going to do about it? Anything? Should we? You guys can argue all you want about that, but global warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions isn't just a buzzword, idea, or a theory it's an observation.

TLDNR Wilt and his fans suck

[KevinNYC]

Global warming isn't a theory, it's an observation.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.

You guys can argue all you want about that, but global warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions isn't just a buzzword, idea, or a theory it's an observation.
You've made a quite a leap here.

I think you need to organize your argument better.

[CavaliersFTW]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.

You've made a quite a leap here.

I think you need to organize your argument better.
There is no leap, this isn't an argument. "anthropogenic global warming" is not a theory, it's an observation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M

The political question isn't whether it's caused by humans. The answer to what causes it is just as known and just as observed. It is pigheaded to declare that it isn't known. The political question is do we or should we do anything about it.

[Mike Armstrong]

Global warming is just liberal propaganda.

[GIF REACTION]

stick to the gimmick michael

[LikeMike]

stick to the gimmick michael

Says a failed gimmick account.

[knickballer]

Ain't nobody got time to read all that ph@ggot

[KevinNYC]

There is no leap, this isn't an argument. "anthropogenic global warming" is not a theory, it's an observation.
Climate scientists would not agree with you.

The leap you are making is similar to the argument made by the "vaccines cause autism crowd."

Two observations does not a proven theory make.

This is not to argue against the evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming, I'm talking about the way you phrased your argument.

It's not how scientists would talk. You basically got it backwards.

Just to say the earth got warmer last year is not an observation. It's a conclusion based on thousands of observations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science). In science when you talk about a theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) is a higher level of argument than an observation. (http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2#2)


Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

[NumberSix]

So, what is the "correct" temperature that the earth "should" be?

[Jailblazers7]

So, what is the "correct" temperature that the earth "should" be?

A nice cozy 72 with low humidity and a light breeze.

[Facepalm]

Global warming isn't a theory, it's an observation. It's a global average of temperatures recorded every year. It has nothing to do with the "weather" today or tomorrow, or having record lows or highs. It is just an average temperature over the course of a year.

And another observation is that of the past 100 years or so our rising temperatures aren't congruent with the more gradual changes the climate has undergone for the past few hundred thousand years - data which we can confidently collect through ice cores, fossilized tree species and rings and studying pollens and animal life in various layers of the earth. Even during ice age transition periods the climate wasn't rising in temperature every 10 or so years to the degree it is at this moment.

Everyone on ISH realizes this right?

And there is a connection that it is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human consumption. Greenhouse gases from various sources such as carbon emissions are being output at an insanely high rate that never was in the planets recent geologic past (by that I mean millions of years) - this production of man made greenhouse gases is also not a theory, it too is an observation. Smaller scale experiments allow scientists to duplicate and confirm with certainty the greenhouse gases that we are outputting warm environments as well as additional observations of how these gases in different concentrations affect other planets or isolated regions on our own planet. Those aforementioned ice cores have trapped gases of earth's atmosphere from all years up to several hundred thousand years back and we can track linearly the composition of our atmosphere and how it correlated to global temperature averages.

This stuff is entirely observation. Not theory. People who call it a theory are pigheadedly denying that it is an observation just like people out there who still believe the earth is flat. The "politics" that kick in are - what are we going to do about it? Anything? Should we? You guys can argue all you want about that, but global warming caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions isn't just a buzzword, idea, or a theory it's an observation.

If global warming was real then why did we have record snowstorms last winter? :facepalm

[gigantes]

If global warming was real then why did we have record snowstorms last winter? :facepalm
various possibilities.

a simple one is that warm air zones tend to gather greater amounts of humidity, and when that humidity moves in to a cool zone, there will naturally be more precipitation than normal.

from my understanding, that's just 'climate 101' stuff.

that's exactly why "global warming" is basically a strawman term. the scientists involved in the theory never meant that term to suggest that climate equals localised weather, but the public and the media prefer that inaccurate understanding in order to enable their ignorance and disingenuous attitudes.

the actual theory is that global climate is being destabilised, with the average global temp going up.

destabilisation is a bad thing, because civilisation is highly tuned to temperature and weather events being in predictable parameters in order for commerce and quality of life to go smoothly and loss of life to be minimised.

...

i'm pretty sure you aren't really interested the facts, but there you go in case i'm wrong.

[Derka]

If global warming was real then why did we have record snowstorms last winter? :facepalm
Because the two things have exactly zero to do with each other.

[The Valley]

If hemp was never made illegal then the term "Global Warming" probably wouldn't exist.

Just saying.

[gigantes]

Because the two things have exactly zero to do with each other.
no no, they very much can have something to do with each other as i explained above.

it's similar to the idea that 'the antarctic is collecting ice, therefore the scientists must be wrong and the climate is a-okay.'

the reality is more like-- the antarctic is the most powerful ice creator on earth, therefore that's where you'd expect to see more ice as a result of global warming.

even so, the historic ice sheets in the antarctic are still breaking apart. it's mainly just new ice that's forming, which is a bad sign.

[DeuceWallaces]

God damnit you people.

[Heavincent]

Yes.

Do I care? No, mother nature gonna do what it does :confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

I get my science from racist ex-marines.

[DonD13]

If hemp was never made illegal then the term "Global Warming" probably wouldn't exist.

Just saying.

http://lowbird.com/data/images/2014/03/4cdn-1393803279299.gif

[KNOW1EDGE]

Ur dum

[Goofsta Knicca]

http://lowbird.com/data/images/2014/03/4cdn-1393803279299.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZZgRiKKGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwK0YL_b0

[bladefd]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Einstein

Too many uneducated fools in the world we live in. I remember the idiots on Fox news saying "we got a snow storm today, which means global warming is not real" last year with huge smiles and just disregarding science as voodoo. I get irritated with nonsense like that. When election comes around, I will make sure to not vote for idiots that brush aside scientists.

Oh and remember, from the Republican side, only 4 believe in climate change:
-Chris Christie,
-Jeb Bush (he does not believe fossil fuels or humans contribute to climate change at all),
-John Kasisch (he wants India/China to go first, which is idiotic considering US uses the most energy globally.. he also supports clean coal, which is hardly clean),
-Marco Rubio (he completely changed his tune once he began running for president to denying climate change.. assuming it was to get more money from conservatives that refuse to believe climate change)

Thats it! 4 candidates and 1 of them believes humans have nothing to do with it at all. Marco Rubio is now against climate change so it is hard to say what he truly believes. That only leaves Chris Christie and John Kasisch. Kasisch wants India/China to go first, which will NOT happen so I would eliminate him too.

[FKAri]

Yes.

Do I care? No, mother nature gonna do what it does :confusedshrug:

lol Mother nature doesnt give a fucc about humans

[DonD13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZZgRiKKGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwK0YL_b0

hot!!

[UK2K]

Because the two things have exactly zero to do with each other.

Now run and find some scientific explanation that fits the agenda, and then call it fact.


[QUOTE]Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the [B]fact that the world

[gigantes]

Now run and find some scientific explanation that fits the agenda, and then call it fact.
look at the date on that-- 2013. wasn't that around the time that IPCC emails got hacked and a bunch of cherry-picked info was released to the press in order to make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy in climate science?

yeah, IIRC it turns out that little smear campaign was pretty much all bullshit. a later, very comprehensive review conducted by the AP found that there was no real impropriety on the part of science, but much disingenuousness and agenda in terms of how the info was first released by the hackers.

so unless my memory is faulty, you just got served by the deniers, UK2K.



Here's something you will enjoy:

Has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases or anything man-made, and has everything to do with shit we have zero control over. Give you, eh, 15 years to come up with some excuse as to why the 'mini ice age' doesn't fit the narrative.
here's something you probably won't enjoy:

scientists are constantly forming, articulating and falsifying hypotheses and theories. they range from the wildly speculative to the generally accepted... such as the theory of gravity, for example.

now wait until your little ice age theory is peer-reviewed at the higher levels of science and then get back to everyone here when a consensus is found that the current theory of AGCC has been found to be flawed and broken. until then, the consensus is otherwise.

but feel free to scrape up whatever wild ideas from scientists A, B and C to try to instantly invalidate the consensus so as to avoid reality if you choose to.

good luck with that, matey.

[UK2K]

look at the date on that-- 2013. wasn't that around the time that IPCC emails got hacked and a bunch of cherry-picked info was released to the press in order to make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy in climate science?

yeah, IIRC it turns out that little smear campaign was pretty much all bullshit. a later, very comprehensive review conducted by the AP found that there was no real impropriety on the part of science, but much disingenuousness and agenda in terms of how the info was first released by the hackers.

so unless my memory is faulty, you just got served by the deniers, UK2K.



here's something you probably won't enjoy:

scientists are constantly forming, articulating and falsifying hypotheses and theories. they range from the wildly speculative to the generally accepted... such as the theory of gravity, for example.

now wait until your little ice age theory is peer-reviewed at the higher levels of science and then get back to everyone here when a consensus is found that the current theory of AGCC has been found to be flawed and broken. until then, the consensus is otherwise.

but feel free to scrape up whatever wild ideas from scientists A, B and C to try to instantly invalidate the consensus so as to avoid reality if you choose to.

good luck with that, matey.

So.. like religion.

You believe it until it doesn't match up to what you believe, then its wrong. Don't worry, they'll find some way to spin it and say CO2 caused the lunar eclipse. They'll find some evidence that says 'well it wasn't exactly right, but here's this, and this says what we meant to say'.


Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

In reality though, no matter what I say, you will find some piece of evidence that fits your agenda repeat it. If it validates what you believe, you will believe it. I know, I do the same thing every week for my DraftKings lineup.

[QUOTE]The [B]recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s

You can see some of the spikes associated with El Ni

[UK2K]

various possibilities.

a simple one is that warm air zones tend to gather greater amounts of humidity, and when that humidity moves in to a cool zone, there will naturally be more precipitation than normal.

from my understanding, that's just 'climate 101' stuff.

that's exactly why "global warming" is basically a strawman term. the scientists involved in the theory never meant that term to suggest that climate equals localised weather, but the public and the media prefer that inaccurate understanding in order to enable their ignorance and disingenuous attitudes.

the actual theory is that global climate is being destabilised, with the average global temp going up.

destabilisation is a bad thing, because civilisation is highly tuned to temperature and weather events being in predictable parameters in order for commerce and quality of life to go smoothly and loss of life to be minimised.

...

i'm pretty sure you aren't really interested the facts, but there you go in case i'm wrong.

Yes they did. They meant it when the Earth was warming. Now that it's not... Now its Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that name. The climate is always changing. Has been for millions of years.

[Nanners]

great thread OP, you really cleared things up for everyone

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes they did. They meant it when the Earth was warming. Now that it's not... Now its Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that name. The climate is always changing. Has been for millions of years.
The earth IS warming up UK2K

The weather of one city here or there from one year here or there does not negate or disprove the observed and collective global rise in average temperature data :hammerhead:

[ThePhantomCreep]

The earth IS warming up UK2K

The weather of one city here or there from one year here or there does not negate or disprove the observed and collective global rise in average temperature data :hammerhead:

Conservatives can barely envision a world outside a three-block radius from their home, you really expect them to grasp the concept of global temperatures? We're still arguing evolution with these nitwits, FFS.

Something like 97% of scientists are in agreement that man-made climate change is real, but these assholes are listening to Megyn Kelly :lol .

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.alberniweather.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trend-since-1998.png

^ A global collective average - that's observed and collected data, those are not speculative numbers those are actual numbers.

A cold winter in your home town does not matter. It's a global average, not a localized average.

Also:

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png

The earths temperature did not change on its own that rapidly even during ice-age transitions. Based on fossil and ice core data global average 2 degree temperature swing would take something in the order of a few thousand years in the earths own natural cycle, not 100.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Even those spikes you see on those charts are in the order of a several thousand year span - not a 100 year span. See how closely earths temperature is linked to c02 levels? And look at current c02 levels, it's way above the earths natural cycle. Who's making all that c02? Oh that's right we are. What do you presume it will do to the earths temperature? What do the last 100 years of a 2 degree rise indicate. Hmmmm.

[UK2K]

http://www.alberniweather.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trend-since-1998.png

^ A global collective average - that's observed and collected data, those are not speculative numbers those are actual numbers.

A cold winter in your home town does not matter. It's a global average, not a localized average.

Also:

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png

The earths temperature did not change on its own that rapidly even during ice-age transitions. Based on fossil and ice core data global average 2 degree temperature swing would take something in the order of a few thousand years in the earths own natural cycle, not 100.

Your graphs are cool, and they correlate kinda, but I don't think that's the only reason, nor do I think its the biggest reason.

I think there are other, more influential factors at play other than burning plastic. Like I said, we have 150 years of weather data when the earth is 4,000,000 years old.

[The.Juice]

I'm worried more about pollution than climate change.
People dump into the oceans and a lot of places have disturbing air pollution.

[CavaliersFTW]

Your graphs are cool, and they correlate kinda, but I don't think that's the only reason, nor do I think its the biggest reason.

I think there are other, more influential factors at play other than burning plastic. Like I said, we have 150 years of weather data when the earth is 4,000,000 years old.Check above again. We have hundreds of thousands of years of ice core gas and temperature data. C02 affecting the earths temperature is a direct connection. This is again, an observation not a theory. There's nothing to not buy into here.

[fpliii]

Check above again. We have hundreds of thousands of years of ice core gas and temperature data. C02 affecting the earths temperature is a direct connection. This is again, an observation not a theory. There's nothing to not buy into here.
:applause:

[UK2K]

Check above again. We have hundreds of thousands of years of ice core gas and temperature data. C02 affecting the earths temperature is a direct connection. This is again, an observation not a theory. There's nothing to not buy into here.

http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Related_Articles/global_temp2.jpg

Yes there is. The planet has been heating and cooling for millions of years, a long, long time before man was around. But how could that be? CO2 causes it! Because we are using data on the last 150 years that coincides with something we want it to (except in the last 15 years, when it doesn't) doesn't make the earth's rising temperatures is a direct result of man-made causes.

There is no direct connection. If there was, the temperature would have been consistently rising since the industrial revolution, but it hasn't. Why is that? Because the earth's climate moves in cycles like it has been for millions of years. It has before us, and it will after us.

By the way, there is a thing called 'proxy' data... That is, we don't know exactly what the temperature was, so we're guessing. We didn't directly record weather until the late 1800's, like I said.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Related_Articles/global_temp2.jpg

Yes there is. The planet has been heating and cooling for millions of years, a long, long time before man was around. But how could that be? CO2 causes it! Because we are using data on the last 150 years that coincides with something we want it to (except in the last 15 years, when it doesn't) doesn't make the earth's rising temperatures is a direct result of man-made causes.

There is no direct connection. If there was, the temperature would have been consistently rising since the industrial revolution, but it hasn't. Why is that? Because the earth's climate moves in cycles like it has been for millions of years. It has before us, and it will after us.

By the way, there is a thing called 'proxy' data... That is, we don't know exactly what the temperature was, so we're guessing. We didn't directly record weather until the late 1800's, like I said.
http://www.alberniweather.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trend-since-1998.png

:hammerhead:

Do you not know how to interpret this data? Serious question.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

If you told CavsFTW the sky is falling he would duck and cover. :lol

[CavaliersFTW]

A 2+ degree rise in average temperature on a pretty linearly "upward" direction. In a span of just 100 years.

In that span of just 100 years c02 levels have been doubled past any high-point of literally the past million years. All the high points and low points the past million years have been extremely consistent in their cycle. Except for right now. Right now we're double the high point has ever been.

Prior to the industrial revolution we were ALREADY within a normal earth-cycle HIGH point in both temperature and c02. Now we're double that in c02, and like I said, the temperature rose 2 degrees in just 100 years. It normally takes about 1,000-3,000 years to see that kind of temperature rise during the earths observed natural cycles of the past million years.

Why the sudden spike in c02? Us. Why the sudden spike in temperature? Us boosting the c02.

How is this so difficult to see? Anyone who can refute this is literally just in denial.

There IS a political question to be had here, but the political question is not "should we believe it" the political question is "should we do anything different".

[UK2K]

http://www.alberniweather.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trend-since-1998.png

:hammerhead:

Do you not know how to interpret this data? Serious question.

Do you realize that data is 130 years out of 4.6 million? Serious question.

0.000028% of the earth's existence. I'm not sure you're understanding that.

[CavaliersFTW]

If you told CavsFTW the sky is falling he would duck and cover. :lol
Why because I payed attention during data analysis in school and you didn't?

[warriorfan]

Why because I payed attention during data analysis in school and you didn't?

You paid too much attention in Homo Wilt Love 101 doe.

[CavaliersFTW]

Do you realize that data is 130 years out of 4.6 million? Serious question.

0.000028% of the earth's existence. I'm not sure you're understanding that.
Yeah, I am understanding that. I provided graphs for the last 1 million years. A little bit about myself, I used to illustrate for paleontology I have a very good understanding of the earths geologic timescale - and climate for that matter as I used to illustrate specifically about species from the last ice age and a few ice ages prior. Me understanding climate data was inexorably linked to what I used to do.

Are you aware that at the very end of that million year graph that period of stability in both temperature and c02 is a duration of about 9,000 years?

Up until 100 years ago the earth is at a stable high point within the natural cycle for the past 9,000 years. Suddenly and I mean very suddenly the c02 doubles in a span of 100 years.... and the temperature rises over 2 degrees. Both of those things have NEVER happened before in that million years of ice core data.

Not a coincidence. And again not within the earths normal cycles of the past million years. Many many ice ages and warming periods happened in that million years. Enough that we know for a fact c02 and temperature are linked. However, nothing changed as quick as it has in the past 100 years. How are you so pigheaded that you are still in denial? It's like you refuse to believe the data illustrates anything. Why is this?

[UK2K]

A 2+ degree rise in average temperature on a pretty linearly "upward" direction. In a span of just 100 years.

In that span of just 100 years c02 levels have been doubled past any high-point of literally the past million years. All the high points and low points the past million years have been extremely consistent in their cycle. Except for right now. Right now we're double the high point has ever been.

Prior to the industrial revolution we were ALREADY within a normal earth-cycle HIGH point in both temperature and c02. Now we're double that in c02, and like I said, the temperature rose 2 degrees in just 100 years. It normally takes about 1,000-3,000 years to see that kind of temperature rise during the earths observed natural cycles of the past million years.

Why the sudden spike in c02? Us. Why the sudden spike in temperature? Us boosting the c02.

How is this so difficult to see? Anyone who can refute this is literally just in denial.

There IS a political question to be had here, but the political question is not "should we believe it" the political question is "should we do anything different".

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.png

How could the temperature drop from the 40's to the 80's with all that C02 floating around? Could it be that the earth's climate naturally changes every few years?

Or did we suck all the C02 out of the atmosphere? I'm sure your 'amount of C02 in the atmosphere' graph has an ever increasing line... but the average temperature doesn't correlate. How come?

Its amazing, we can use graphs made by the same people, but they don't look similar.

I am of the opinion that there are other forces in nature that have more of an impact on earth's climate than burning plastic. That's all I am saying.

Look back in history, changes in climate have been occurring long before man ever existed. I am not saying man-made pollution has zero effect on the climate (like you are asserting), I am saying it has less of an effect as Al Gore believes. That's all.

I believe you, that you probably know what you're talking about. I think the disconnect is what you think I think.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.png

How could the temperature drop from the 40's to the 80's with all that C02 floating around? Could it be that the earth's climate naturally changes every few years?

Or did we suck all the C02 out of the atmosphere? I'm sure your 'amount of C02 in the atmosphere' graph has an ever increasing line... but the average temperature doesn't correlate. How come?

Its amazing, we can use graphs made by the same people, but they don't look similar.

I am of the opinion that there are other forces in nature that have more of an impact on earth's climate than burning plastic. That's all I am saying.

Look back in history, changes in climate have been occurring long before man ever existed. I am not saying man-made pollution has zero effect on the climate (like you are asserting), I am saying it has less of an effect as Al Gore believes. That's all.

I believe you, that you probably know what you're talking about. I think the disconnect is what you think I think.
That graph quite clearly illustrates a steady rise - and in only 100 years. Even during any of the many warming periods of the past million years a 100 year rise like that has never been observed, that same rise of 2+ degrees normally took 1,000-3,000 years. What is happening right now is not the same as the natural cycles that happened in the past.

Random blips downwards for a year or two or even 10 do not contradict the 100 year rise. That's the point of graphing. To see the trend. The trend is quite clearly, and quite steadily up.

*EDIT*

Also a couple of things to understand about that graph: The "average" temperature among THAT specific time periods recorded data is represented as that line across the middle. The actual average temperature of the past 9,000 years of climatic stability would be lower than that, if that was used as the average that line would be somewhere about what was observed in 1880's to 1920. Another thing to note, that chart is in degrees C not F. And also, what needs to be understood that that one graph alone does not illustrate is that the prior 9,000 years have been stable, and prior to that 9,000 years the earth was much colder. And prior to that there have been about a dozen warm and cool cycles understood from ice core data of the past million years - but all the cycles peaked at what the earth peaked at for the past 9,000 years. Now that the temperature spiked 2 degrees in only 100 years, we're breaking the trend the ice core data reveals. Not following it.

[bladefd]

I am of the opinion that there are other forces in nature that have more of an impact on earth's climate than burning plastic. That's all I am saying.

Look back in history, changes in climate have been occurring long before man ever existed. I am not saying man-made pollution has zero effect on the climate (like you are asserting), I am saying it has less of an effect as Al Gore believes. That's all.

-burning fossil fuel
-burning plastic,
-deforestation
-large amounts of breeding cows for more milk, meat, etc lead to excess methane (methane is another greenhouse gas like CO2, you get N2O from the extra cows/pigs/etc being bred)
-surging human population (requires more ground to get higher food yields, more electricity required aka more fossil fuel being burned, more garbage and human wastes release more greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, etc)

All of them have impacts on climate change and are all manmade causes. Where do you think those greenhouse gases go? Anyone that says humans are not contributing to climate change is a fool that does not understand basic logic or how greenhouse effect works (i.e. Jeb Bush who says climate change is happening but humans have nothing to do with it).

[UK2K]

-burning fossil fuel
-burning plastic,
-deforestation
-large amounts of breeding cows for more milk, meat, etc lead to excess methane (methane is another greenhouse gas like CO2, you get N2O from the extra cows/pigs/etc being bred)
-surging human population (requires more ground to get higher food yields, more electricity required aka more fossil fuel being burned, more garbage and human wastes release more greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, etc)

All of them have impacts on climate change and are all manmade causes. Where do you think those greenhouse gases go? Anyone that says humans are not contributing to climate change is a fool that does not understand basic logic or how greenhouse effect works (i.e. Jeb Bush who says climate change is happening but humans have nothing to do with it).

I never said that. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about.

[oarabbus]

Why am I not surprised UK2K is a climate change denier?

[UK2K]

Why am I not surprised UK2K is a climate change denier?

Never said that either.

Keep trying though.

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU

Explained in 3 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI

Explained in 10 minutes

[bladefd]

I never said that. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about.

I never said that you said that. I used Jeb Bush as the example. If the shot was targeted at you, I would have used you as the example.

Do you believe humans contribute to climate change? If you don't believe that then yes you would be included with Jeb Bush. If you do believe that then no, you would not be included with Jeb Bush. Don't say "I don't know" because I gave you direct examples in my post you quoted.

[outbreak]

I haven't read all of what uk2k has said here so maybe he said something stupid I missed but I think he's actually right. Humans contribute to global warming but they aren't the only cause. Human beings by nature are arrogant though and have to make everything about themselves. As soon as you say this people say you are stupid and take things to the extreme claiming you are denying climate change, you don't have to deny climate change and you don't have to deny mankinds impact but you can say there are other factors causing changes as well.

[oarabbus]

Never said that either.

Keep trying though.

You don't deny the fact of climate change, but you deny that humans have anything to do with it. Am I closer now?

[CavaliersFTW]

I haven't read all of what uk2k has said here so maybe he said something stupid I missed but I think he's actually right. Humans contribute to global warming but they aren't the only cause. Human beings by nature are arrogant though and have to make everything about themselves. As soon as you say this people say you are stupid and take things to the extreme claiming you are denying climate change, you don't have to deny climate change and you don't have to deny mankinds impact but you can say there are other factors causing changes as well.
No you can't actually - not for the changes happening in the past 100 years.

There is zero evidence that the climate has warmed up in the past hundred years for any reason other than human's increased production of greenhouse gases and elimination of oxygen producing plant biomes such as rainforests.

In the past 100 years, it's entirely due to humans. And the climate was stable for the prior 9,000 years. Nature does have a fluctuation on its own but it takes a much longer time and we were/should stil be in a stable period right now and the next predictable "change" based on ice core data would have been a gradual drop in temperature over the course of a few thousand years anyways. Not a rise, in just 100.

[outbreak]

No you can't actually - not for the changes happening in the past 100 years.

There is zero evidence that the climate has warmed up in the past hundred years for any reason other than human's increased production of greenhouse gases and elimination of oxygen producing plant biomes such as rainforests.

In the past 100 years, it's entirely due to humans. And the climate was stable for the prior 9,000 years. Nature does have a fluctuation on its own but it takes a much longer time and we were/should stil be in a stable period right now and the next predictable "change" based on ice core data would have been a gradual drop in temperature over the course of a few thousand years anyways. Not a rise, in just 100.

You did not read what I wrote. I didn't say humans aren't speeding it up I'm just saying it's incorrect to say it's purely caused by humans.

There's been a bunch of studies and theories going back before climate change was a hot issue showing that another mass extinction due to climate shift was coming in the next few thousand years. I think they even showed we were over due.

Again I'm not saying humans aren't speeding things up and aren't involved. I'm just saying there's more to it than just humans being the only cause, even the large part we play isn't an isolated incident through history. There have been other examples of dominant species being some successful they damage the environment for period of time, off the top of my head I can recall reading about when plants first evolved to output oxygen they caused other life to die out due to the changes this caused. I'm not saying it's not humans i'm saying it's more complex than saying it's just a result of humans.

We shouldn't be talking about the earth being stable in thousand year periods either, that's too small of a time span to look at it's just hard for us a species to comprehend appropriate timespans.

[CavaliersFTW]

You did not read what I wrote. I didn't say humans aren't speeding it up I'm just saying it's incorrect to say it's purely caused by humans.

There's been a bunch of studies and theories going back before climate change was a hot issue showing that another mass extinction due to climate shift was coming in the next few thousand years. I think they even showed we were over due.

Again I'm not saying humans aren't speeding things up and aren't involved. I'm just saying there's more to it than just humans being the only cause, even the large part we play isn't an isolated incident through history. There have been other examples of dominant species being some successful they damage the environment for period of time, off the top of my head I can recall reading about when plants first evolved to output oxygen they caused other life to die out due to the changes this caused. I'm not saying it's not humans i'm saying it's more complex than saying it's just a result of humans.
What happened in the past 100 years is caused strictly by humans though. We're not speeding anything up. We were in the middle of a 9,000 year period of climatic stability. And based on ice core data the next change should have been a gradual cooling over the course of many thousands of years.

Not warming up in 100. That's entirely us. We're not assisting, or speeding up anything. The climate shouldn't even be warming up. And we're not being a small drip of a bigger pond like you're trying to imply. We and we alone caused a change in the opposite direction in 100 years that nature would not have caused. I understand exactly what you said, and it isn't what the data suggests.

[DeuceWallaces]

I haven't read all of what uk2k has said here so maybe he said something stupid I missed but I think he's actually right. Humans contribute to global warming but they aren't the only cause. Human beings by nature are arrogant though and have to make everything about themselves. As soon as you say this people say you are stupid and take things to the extreme claiming you are denying climate change, you don't have to deny climate change and you don't have to deny mankinds impact but you can say there are other factors causing changes as well.

No. There is mountains of scientific and statistical evidence, but for some reason people like yourself, UK, or whoever seem to think they actually know what they're talking about, because yet another scientific issue has been politicized. Therefore, you're filled with dumbass talking points that are based not in science but corporate bullshit.

Nothing in the history of geologic time comes close to mimicking what's taken place over the past 150 years. Only the PETM comes close and it took like 100 thousand years.

[outbreak]

Scientists don't even say it's all humans, they all factor in rotations, solar activity, eccentric obrits, tilts etc. For some reason people like yourself have to single it out as just humans when even the experts and the people who are making your damn case don't say it's just humans. As soon as you try and post what they actually say people go to extremes and want to act like they know more than the studies. I never said it wasn't human involvement, I never said they didn't speed it up, I am simply saying what all the experts say and that is that isn't ONLY humans. Humans may be speeding things up, may be the biggest cause but it isn't ONLY humans.

[CavaliersFTW]

Scientists don't even say it's all humans, they all factor in rotations, solar activity, eccentric obrits, tilts etc. For some reason people like yourself have to single it out as just humans when even the experts and the people who are making your damn case don't say it's just humans. As soon as you try and post what they actually say people go to extremes and want to act like they know more than the studies. I never said it wasn't human involvement, I never said they didn't speed it up, I am simply saying what all the experts say and that is that isn't ONLY humans. Humans may be speeding things up, may be the biggest cause but it isn't ONLY humans.
No they don't. Not for the warming of the past 150 years. Scientists know exactly and entirely what has caused it, and it is human activity and human activity alone. There is no controversy here among scientists, it's universally accepted as human activity. The only controversy is among business and politically motivated people who either aren't aware or outright refuse to believe the human activity data. There's no weird orbits or tilts or solar activity or w/e happening you probably heard that from some other non-believer trying to stray from the actual data. You won't find any peer reviewed studies on those red herrings. Human activity alone caused this 150 year spike in temperature.

[outbreak]

No they don't. Not for the warming of the past 150 years. Scientists know exactly and entirely what has caused it, and it is human activity and human activity alone. There is no controversy here among scientists, it's universally accepted as human activity. The only controversy is among business and politically motivated people who either aren't aware or outright refuse to believe the human activity data.

again. read what i wrote and don't focus on one point. I didn't say we didn't speed up the shift in recent history. You're usually a good poster man read the full posts before continuing on a point that doesn't respond to what I'm saying.

[CavaliersFTW]

again. read what i wrote and don't focus on one point. I didn't say we didn't speed up the shift in recent history. You're usually a good poster man read the full posts before continuing on a point that doesn't respond to what I'm saying.
We caused the shift in recent history. We didn't speed it up. We caused it. And ice core data suggests it never would have happened under the earths natural cycle.

I understand exactly what you're saying you're trying to diminish the blame on humans by suggesting we are but some small piece in a bigger puzzle. That's the antithesis of what the data suggests.

[gigantes]

i don't FEEL that the science is right on this.


i don't THINK that it's right!


i don't UNDERSTAND the process of a sketchy theory becoming a well-respected theory.


i NEVER understood the science domain very well to begin with, but i THINK that my OWN field and experience and expertise should weigh just as much upon the issue, even thought i BARELY understand the foundation of the issue and the variables at play.


even if i'm WRONG about any of that, i'm PRETTY SURE there's a big liberal conspiracy aimed at milking money from us abused, anti-science types who are simply trying to live clean lives. that is-- WE are definitely the VICTIMS here.


i mean, just as we LOVE to throw around terms of "CONSPIRACY" and 'the evil green alliance,' we in fact know hardly anything about the reverse corporate interest highly interested in trying to frame "global warming" as nothing but nonsensical money-grab.


and yet we have years of documentation about WHERE and HOW the money flows, even if this is a bit outdated now:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/


in short-- we LIKE our opinion and RESENT others 'telling us what to do.'


we're moral and STRONG people who don't take SHIT from the wacky liberals.


this is who we are! :rockon:

[DeuceWallaces]

Scientists don't even say it's all humans, they all factor in rotations, solar activity, eccentric obrits, tilts etc. For some reason people like yourself have to single it out as just humans when even the experts and the people who are making your damn case don't say it's just humans. As soon as you try and post what they actually say people go to extremes and want to act like they know more than the studies. I never said it wasn't human involvement, I never said they didn't speed it up, I am simply saying what all the experts say and that is that isn't ONLY humans. Humans may be speeding things up, may be the biggest cause but it isn't ONLY humans.

You're wrong. I know exactly what scientists say. I spend all day reading what they say, writing about what the say, and going to seminars to hear what they have to say.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

You're wrong. I know exactly what scientists say. I spend all day reading what they say, writing about what the say, and going to seminars to hear what they have to say.

This guy must be a total ***** magnet.

[SwayDizzle]

This guy must be a total ***** magnet.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[CavaliersFTW]

Bump for ding dong chewing.

[Patrick Chewing]

Bump for ding dong chewing.


You can post all the charts you want, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.


The Earth has always had heating and cooling cycles, but you guys want to be alarmists and politicize this by making it an issue when it is not.

[CavaliersFTW]

You can post all the charts you want, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.


The Earth has always had heating and cooling cycles, but you guys want to be alarmists and politicize this by making it an issue when it is not.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

No. Scientists discovered this.

It's politically motivated people who know **** all about how to interpret scientific information (you) who deny it.

Keep the story straight bud :cheers:

[GIF REACTION]

Climate Change is very real, but it too often gets over-dramatized by staunch pro-liberal politics

[NumberSix]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

No. Scientists discovered this.

It's politically motivated people who know **** all about how to interpret scientific information (you) who deny it.

Keep the story straight bud :cheers:
Yeah, but you're not showing "scientific information" though. You're basically showing opinion polls.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, but you're not showing "scientific information" though. You're basically showing opinion polls.
Browse through the thread. Been there done that, try and keep up. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

Climate Change is very real, but it too often gets over-dramatized by staunch pro-liberal politics
Of course. The earth's climate changes. That's what it does.

I've got news for all the fcuk tards out there. The earth has been a lot hotter that it is right now, and it will be again and you're a fool if you think you can just make it not ever get hotter again. We're still in the process of thawing out of the last ice age.

The South Pole used to be a tropical climate. Guess what? It will be again someday. There's nothing you can do about that. Get it out of your head that the exact current climate is the "correct" climate and that you can somehow keep it that way.

[Patrick Chewing]

I'm sure the Earth is a lot hotter when a volcano erupts or when a meteor hits us. Those are all life-ending events.


But uhhh yeah, we uhhh have to focus on humans.

[gigantes]

not to mention there's a large industry to manipulate the publics opinion against action on CC, often working through "think tanks" and conservative-type websites. i'm amazed to load up sites like yahoo and regularly see completely bullshit articles nestled amongst real ones, but that's how money and powerful orgs work.

so when people like patrick chewing say that 'there's plenty of data that says otherwise', what he doesn't know and doesn't care about is the fact that he's almost certainly getting his information from folks who are basically professional liars.

i.e., many of the same folks that worked for big tobacco before the huge settlement.

[GIF REACTION]

We also have to have a bit of perspective. All the people pushing the Climate change agenda are actively benefiting from Fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. That said, it does not mean we can ignore it, but please don't play the moral high ground with righteousness.

[Styles p]

it's been in the 50's-60's here in new jersey all of december.

[CavaliersFTW]

Of course. The earth's climate changes. That's what it does.

I've got news for all the fcuk tards out there. The earth has been a lot hotter that it is right now, and it will be again and you're a fool if you think you can just make it not ever get hotter again. We're still in the process of thawing out of the last ice age.

The South Pole used to be a tropical climate. Guess what? It will be again someday. There's nothing you can do about that. Get it out of your head that the exact current climate is the "correct" climate and that you can somehow keep it that way.
The South Pole has been covered in ice for 15 million years and scientists don't speculate it was ever tropical.

Through warming periods it has still had ice. Through natural disasters like periods of volcanism or asteroid impact or w/e ice might have melted.

But it has never been proposed as tropical in any relevantly recent time period.

Maybe you're confusing it with Antarctica. Which is a continent. Which has slowly drifted south into the Southpole and once had a warmer climate because it was once in a different location.

[Nick Young]

Did you guys know that the Earth has gone through thousands of mini ice ages and five major ice ages in the 4.5 billion years of it's existence?

Just some food for thought bros.

[Patrick Chewing]

it's been in the 50's-60's here in new jersey all of december.


El Ni

[Patrick Chewing]

not to mention there's a large industry to manipulate the publics opinion against action on CC, often working through "think tanks" and conservative-type websites. i'm amazed to load up sites like yahoo and regularly see completely bullshit articles nestled amongst real ones, but that's how money and powerful orgs work.

so when people like patrick chewing say that 'there's plenty of data that says otherwise', what he doesn't know and doesn't care about is the fact that he's almost certainly getting his information from folks who are basically professional liars.

i.e., many of the same folks that worked for big tobacco before the huge settlement.


So the Conservatives are the liars and the Liberals are the truth tellers? Ahh I got it now.

[CavaliersFTW]

So the Conservatives are the liars and the Liberals are the truth tellers? Ahh I got it now.
Scientists you idiot. We're talking about scientists.

Wtf - bringing up 'liberals'? Why is this a god damned political discussion with you.

SCIENTISTS are behind this. Really ****in smart people who dedicate their lives to learning the honest to god truth about this stuff. It's not about being liberal or conservative you half wit.

[Patrick Chewing]

Wtf - bringing up 'liberals'? Why is this a god damned political discussion with you.

SCIENTISTS are behind this. It's not about being liberal or conservative you half wit.


Did you not read his post you dweeb??

[GIF REACTION]

Scientists you idiot. We're talking about scientists.

Wtf - bringing up 'liberals'? Why is this a god damned political discussion with you.

SCIENTISTS are behind this. Really ****in smart people who dedicate their lives to learning the honest to god truth about this stuff. It's not about being liberal or conservative you half wit.
Blame liberals for bringing politics and social aspects to science, which my design is discriminatory and 'racist'

[NumberSix]

Scientists you idiot. We're talking about scientists.

Wtf - bringing up 'liberals'? Why is this a god damned political discussion with you.

SCIENTISTS are behind this. Really ****in smart people who dedicate their lives to learning the honest to god truth about this stuff. It's not about being liberal or conservative you half wit.
Scientists keep changing their mind about whether milk is good for you or how many cups of water you should drink.


Serious question bro. You know there are a lot of different gasses. Why do you people obsess about only 1?

[CavaliersFTW]

Did you not read his post you dweeb??
He's right though.

He's trying to tell you be careful not to get sucked into politically motivated groups.

An oceanographer who studies plankton for a living and says "yep climate is really ****ing this shit up and my research team is providing X Y and Z case studies" is not the same as people you see being paid by politicians (be them motivated by ANY political affiliation) to say certain things on tv.

Listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR3TI6xyzU

[CavaliersFTW]

Scientists keep changing their mind about whether milk is good for you or how many cups of water you should drink.


Serious question bro. You know there are a lot of different gasses. Why do you people obsess about only 1?
Lol, are you trying to muddy up earth science by comparing it with people who debate about nutrition? Jesus.

The data suggests that that one gas is intrinsically linked to the earths climate on this specific topic. How are you unable to even follow this discussion? You're way behind if you don't understand why that "one gas" is so important on this topic.

[gigantes]

So the Conservatives are the liars and the Liberals are the truth tellers? Ahh I got it now.
you're like that character from dilbert who only responds to mangled, extremist versions of what other people say, aren't you?

why do you even bother 'debating' (i use the word lightly) in threads like these? i mean climate alarmism has been safely debunked in your mind, so what's the point?

[NumberSix]

Lol, are you trying to muddy up earth science by comparing it with people who debate about nutrition? Jesus.

The data suggests that that one gas is intrinsically linked to the earths climate on this specific topic. How are you unable to even follow this discussion? You're way behind if you don't understand why that "one gas" is so important on this topic.
Yes, linked. By what you're doing is presenting it as it CAUSES the earths climate.

[NumberSix]

How much does Islamic terrorism contribute to climate change?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

How much does Islamic terrorism contribute to climate change?

Thankfully Obama has refused to hit ISIS oil targets in fear of environmental impact. So very little.

[Patrick Chewing]

How much does Islamic terrorism contribute to climate change?


No, no, no. You have it backwards. Climate change causes some people to become terrorists and strap bombs to their chest or to behead people.


This is serious. Obama: The Defender of the Islamic Faith

[imdaman99]

No, no, no. You have it backwards. Climate change causes some people to become terrorists and strap bombs to their chest or to behead people.


This is serious. Obama: The Defender of the Islamic Faith
Terrorism and strapping bombs to oneself (killing innocents period much less with suicide) are not allowed in Islam. Please read the entire Qur'an instead of taking a page out of known idiot's book and reading 1 isolated sentence at a time.

[sundizz]

This is the main problem with humanity - people like CavsFTL who in all respects seems like a pretty legit guy....spouting off nonsense that will result in nothing.

He is the ultimate example of reads way too much, discusses way too much, but does way too little. The further people are from a problem the easier it is to be ideological about it.

My facebook is full of people posting stuff about climate change, ISIS, Trump, etc. All worthwhile social issues.

But in reality all it does is create mental instability/fear because we as humans suck at doing anything more than spectating. We act like all this stuff is mainstream to our lives.

Most people that do all this "talking" have this sort of life:

1. Wake up, go to work, and maybe to the gym.
2. Watch sports on their big televisions, and live in a decent apartment.
3. Randomly read articles throughout the day about 20 different social topics on their iPhone.
4. Spout about said "knowledge" through social media.
5. Go to bed.

Literally, we are the 1% (if you make more than 34k a year, you are officially part of the 1%). It sickens me to no end how MUCH we talk, and how little we do. None of us is giving up our salaries (or general comforts) to help the world become a better place. I'm tired of hearing people talking about what the problems in the world are we live in a world that has such a ridiculously big income disparity.

Want to make a difference in the world? Use the privilege you were born with to donate/support a few families in an underdeveloped region of the world. Your $20 support a day would give the basic necessities of life for so many people.

Instead, all I see is people parading around as champions of social justice and doing nothing to help actual people. The internet deludes our generation so much into thinking we are good people doing stuff to help the world out.

I have no delusions of being a good person. I'm just going to accept my privilege and shut my mouth about the injustice in the world. It is what it is.

[Akrazotile]

This is the main problem with humanity - people like CavsFTL who in all respects seems like a pretty legit guy....spouting off nonsense that will result in nothing.

He is the ultimate example of reads way too much, discusses way too much, but does way too little. The further people are from a problem the easier it is to be ideological about it.

My facebook is full of people posting stuff about climate change, ISIS, Trump, etc. All worthwhile social issues.

But in reality all it does is create mental instability/fear because we as humans suck at doing anything more than spectating. We act like all this stuff is mainstream to our lives.

Most people that do all this "talking" have this sort of life:

1. Wake up, go to work, and maybe to the gym.
2. Watch sports on their big televisions, and live in a decent apartment.
3. Randomly read articles throughout the day about 20 different social topics on their iPhone.
4. Spout about said "knowledge" through social media.
5. Go to bed.

Literally, we are the 1% (if you make more than 34k a year, you are officially part of the 1%). It sickens me to no end how MUCH we talk, and how little we do. None of us is giving up our salaries (or general comforts) to help the world become a better place. I'm tired of hearing people talking about what the problems in the world are we live in a world that has such a ridiculously big income disparity.

Amen, brother.




Want to make a difference in the world? Use the privilege you were born with to donate/support a few families in an underdeveloped region of the world. Your $20 support a day would give the basic necessities of life for so many people.

Instead, all I see is people parading around as champions of social justice and doing nothing to help actual people. The internet deludes our generation so much into thinking we are good people doing stuff to help the world out.

I have no delusions of being a good person. I'm just going to accept my privilege and shut my mouth about the injustice in the world. It is what it is.


The problem is exactly that, the real solutions, the REAL solutions, are too difficult for people like Ridonks and Nanners to own up to. Because the fact is, the true fact of human nature is, people are only going to give minimal support to others. Just enough to buy off their conscience. The only way to REALLY help an individual or a group in the long term, is to teach them to help themselves. If they won't do it? We need to stop pretending. If they can't do it? We need to stop pretending. If all the people who continue to struggle look different than the people who aren't? Need to accept it.

Humans are not born equal, and the only way to even approach the possibility of equal outcomes, is to have more innately equal people. And barbarous methods aside, this is actually what Adolf Hitler tried to do. He felt Jews were smarter. He felt gypsies were dumber. He saw all these mashed up groupings as contributing to social heirarchies. Obviously we find his handling of this philosophy detestable, but the fact is, it's perfectly legit to question whether diversity is as important as politicians and big business owners want you to believe so they can get access to as many voting groups and customers bases as possible.

You can't rely on humans not to exploit each other due to their consciences. That's not how we're evolved to function. The only way you can prevent it is to give people as approximately equal of a physical and intellectual ability to resist exploitation as possible. That does not currently exist in the world. Whether it's due to genetics, or stubborn cultural/religious ideologies, or resources at a given lattitude/longitude. But people aren't equal. And that's why there's no equality.

Crying about it and voting Democrat doesnt CHANGE anything. It just postures oneself to appear some kind of 'more concerned' social hero. It's just a fraud. These people don't walk an inch of it.