Where is the damning evidence that climate change isn’t real?

[outofstomach]

please show me, im absolutely all ears (or eyes in this case)

[Rocket]

A rare moment of truth from the face of climate alarmism.


https://rumble.com/embed/vg6mpd/?pub=4

[Patrick Chewing]

Where is the damning evidence that it is? You can't prove a negative, dumbass.

[outofstomach]

Where is the damning evidence that it is? You can't prove a negative, dumbass.

you can’t prove an abstract, yeah sure

you can however, have evidence that supports one position over the other, so where is it? rètard?

[theman93]

The individual making the claim bears the burden of proof, not the other way around.

Anyways, the climate change pushers investing in coastal property that will allegedly be underwater in the years to come should tell you all you need to know.

[outofstomach]

A rare moment of truth from the face of climate alarmism.


https://rumble.com/embed/vg6mpd/?pub=4

watching the interview myself (and the non-manipulated version, removed out of the republitard agenda) it’s clear she meant it in a third party, hypothetical type of way from the standpoint of a voter


https://youtu.be/0HUzN9PTQn0

next one up, please

[outofstomach]

The individual making the claim bears the burden of proof, not the other way around.

Anyways, the climate change pushers investing in coastal property that will allegedly be underwater in the years to come should tell you all you need to know.if i claim that a chair in a room exists, and you claim that there is not, we both have a “burden of proof”, that’s how arguing/debate works dude

you don’t disagree with someone’s position and then don’t supplement it with some sort of applicable evidence

[theman93]

if i claim that a chair in a room exists, and you claim that there is not, we both have a “burden of proof”, that’s how arguing/debate works dude

you don’t disagree with someone’s position and then don’t supplement it with some sort of applicable evidence

No, you're confusing ontology with epistemology.

Anyways, nobody is arguing climate change isn't real. It's always been real. You need to distinguish what you're arguing ABOUT climate change (it seems to be you are asserting the climate alarmists are speaking truth). Remember, you bear the burden of proof if you are making the truth claim.

[Patrick Chewing]

The individual making the claim bears the burden of proof, not the other way around.



:lol

This outofstomach clown thought he was being cute and funny and smart. But nope.

[outofstomach]

No, you're confusing ontology with epistemology.

Anyways, nobody is arguing climate change isn't real. It's always been real. You need to distinguish what you're arguing ABOUT climate change (it seems to be you are asserting the climate alarmists are speaking truth). Remember, you bear the burden of proof if you are making the truth claim.

what truth claim did i make in the thread title? i asked for evidence FOR a claim :lol

and no, im not arguing for climate alarmists, im asking for evidence that climate change is a manufactured myth and that the earth has not been steadily warming up as the centuries passed by

[outofstomach]

:lol

This outofstomach clown thought he was being cute and funny and smart. But nope.not at all :applause: i posed a simple question, im still waiting for your justifications for climate change not being real :applause: where is it at?

[Patrick Chewing]

not at all :applause: i posed a simple question, im still waiting for your justifications for climate change not being real :applause: where is it at?

First off, I haven't made any claim one way or the other. And secondly, for you to ask for someone to prove otherwise, then you yourself would to have first made the claim and provided empirical evidence that climate change is in fact real.

So let's see it big guy.

[outofstomach]

First off, I haven't made any claim one way or the other. And secondly, for you to ask for someone to prove otherwise, then you yourself would to have first made the claim and provided empirical evidence that climate change is in fact real.

So let's see it big guy.no links, articles, videos, nada! :applause:

im gonna make the assumption you don’t have any

next one up please

[outofstomach]

also, similarly you can’t “prove” an abstract to be positive either, you fūcking remedial trog :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

This guy outofstomach must be bored and we just entertained this little troll for a few minutes. On to our regular and successful lives now.

[BigKobeFan]

Wasnt there a hack years ago where a bunch of scientists agreed there is no climate change

[theman93]

what truth claim did i make in the thread title? i asked for evidence FOR a claim :lol

and no, im not arguing for climate alarmists, im asking for evidence that climate change is a manufactured myth and that the earth has not been steadily warming up as the centuries passed by

In other words, you are making the truth claim that climate change is causing the earth to steadily warm up as the centuries have passed.

You bear the burden of proof that what you're saying is true. I don't have to prove what you're saying is false, you have to prove what you're saying is true.

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc2_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc3_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc4.png

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=21a5a29c12d6

Feel free to explain.

[outofstomach]

In other words, you are making the truth claim that climate change is causing the earth to steadily warm up as the centuries have passed.

You bear the burden of proof that what you're saying is true. I don't have to prove what you're saying is false, you have to prove what you're saying is true.

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc2_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc3_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc4.png

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=21a5a29c12d6

Feel free to explain.again, i made no assertion whatsoever in my thread title nor my statements, i asked for evidence FOR a claim

regardless, thank you, ill look into this

[theman93]

Also consider


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

[Patrick Chewing]

In other words, you are making the truth claim that climate change is causing the earth to steadily warm up as the centuries have passed.

You bear the burden of proof that what you're saying is true. I don't have to prove what you're saying is false, you have to prove what you're saying is true.

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc2_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc3_1.png

http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/_uploads/photos/545eb204/cc4.png

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=21a5a29c12d6

Feel free to explain.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3owzW9EZI8M3sz9s5O/giphy.gif

[tpols]

Didn't Al Gore make like a 100 million dollars 20 years ago going around giving speeches that our coastal cities will be under water by now?

Everything with the media is a constant fear porn. Terrorism, climate change, viruses they're always blowing something out of proportion.

[bladefd]

what truth claim did i make in the thread title? i asked for evidence FOR a claim :lol

and no, im not arguing for climate alarmists, im asking for evidence that climate change is a manufactured myth and that the earth has not been steadily warming up as the centuries passed by

The clowns have moved their goalposts to "the climate is always changing so nothing out of the norm!" and "see? It's cold outside and snowing! What global warming?" or nowadays "yes, it's changing but it is not from human doing". My favorite goalpost that I have actually heard before is "warm weather feels good so it's no problem!" :facepalm

[AKA_AAP]

Anyways, the climate change pushers investing in coastal property that will allegedly be underwater in the years to come should tell you all you need to know.

This needs to be said over and over again.

[bladefd]

This needs to be said over and over again.

Explain something. So you think the people who believe in climate change happening have coastal properties (or invest in them)?

[AKA_AAP]

Explain something. So you think the people who believe in climate change happening have coastal properties (or invest in them)?

They live in them, including Racist Obama. Now let's hear your MSNBC spin!

[bladefd]

They live in them, including Racist Obama. Now let's hear your MSNBC spin!

Didntcha know that those who don't believe in climate change are in the minority? Gee, that's a lot of extra coastal houses held by a majority of the world! :eek:

[AKA_AAP]

Didntcha know that those who don't believe in climate change are in the minority? Gee, that's a lot of extra coastal houses held by a majority of the world! :eek:

Bad interpretation, as usual.

Now my turn. Can you explain theman93's first graph on global mean temperature? And how much of an effect do humans have on climate change?

[bladefd]

Bad interpretation, as usual.

Now my turn. Can you explain theman93's first graph on global mean temperature? And how much of an effect do humans have on climate change?

I will post something that I have been posting for last ~4 years on here. Nobody on ish has been willing to challenge me on it. I break down the process and the affect that humans have on our climate.



It's all connected. The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming. Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone last decade.





Technology won't bring back extinct animals and won't bring back ancient forests/rainforests we are burning down. Technology alone isn't the answer but technology + behavior shift together.

Behavior change examples:

-We need to eat much less meat and breed less farm animals for our consumption. They take up too much open land for grazing (results in fewer trees/forests as the land is cleared out) and release too much methane. Another possible solution: more fake meat.
-We need to bring down population growth. Earth can't sustain more than ~20 billion people max , 10-12 billion is a good balance imo to maintain high quality of life.
-Stop overfishing. Eat less fish. We need more plant-based diet with some meat/fish than vice versa.
-Switch to biodegradable plastic across the board. No non-biodegradable plastic bags and plastic water bottles.
-Re-training for those doing work in coal, oil, and eventually natural gas sectors into solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc. Transition faster.
-Some carbon capture technology usage to take some carbon out of the atmosphere back into storage/solid state. You don't want to overdo this because you don't want unintended consequences from excessively artificially screwing around with the Earth's processes.

[AKA_AAP]

I will post something that I have been posting for last ~4 years on here. Nobody on ish has been willing to challenge me on it. I break down the process and the affect that humans have on our climate.



It's all connected. The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone this decade.





Technology won't bring back extinct animals and won't bring back ancient forests/rainforests we are burning down. Technology alone isn't the answer but technology + behavior shift together.

Behavior change examples:

-We need to eat much less meat and breed less farm animals for our consumption. They take up too much open land for grazing (results in fewer trees/forests as the land is cleared out) and release too much methane. Another possible solution: more fake meat.
-We need to bring down population growth. Earth can't sustain more than ~20 billion people max , 10-12 billion is a good balance imo to maintain high quality of life.
-Stop overfishing. Eat less fish. We need more plant-based diet with some meat/fish than vice versa.
-Switch to biodegradable plastic across the board. No non-biodegradable plastic bags and plastic water bottles.
-Re-training for those doing work in coal, oil, and eventually natural gas sectors into solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc. Transition faster.
-Some carbon capture technology usage to take some carbon out of the atmosphere back into storage/solid state. You don't want to overdo this because you don't want unintended consequences from excessively artificially screwing around with the Earth's processes.

Skimmed through your garbage really quickly and I noticed you didn't address the fact that global mean temperature is a predictable cycle, even before humans.

[Cleverness]

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

But if you're going to make a case for the policies being proposed you better make a rock solid case for them. And I don't think it's a coincidence the policies screw the people while the ones promoting the idea behind "saving the climate" continue to fly around in private jets and live lavishly.

[Cleverness]

Skimmed through your garbage really quickly and I noticed you didn't address the fact that global mean temperature is a predictable cycle, even before humans.

When he says "we need to do x" he means "you need to do x".

Once all the billionaires give up their private jet/yacht lifestyles and live like bike-riding, piss poor vegans for at least a few years I may start taking them more seriously.

[bladefd]

Look at the distance between each of the peaks. It is about 100,000 years. Over 100,000 years yes, but it has never gone up in a short period of 150 years except in times of major crisis like a supervolcano eruption, asteroid, or some big environmental crisis (we have not had any major global ones in the last 200yrs).

We have been in an ice age for a couple of million years now. Within an ice age are glacier periods (glaciers grow as climate cools down) and interglacial period (glaciers pull back as climate warms up). If we are in an interglacial period, then it would warm up over 10,000+ years. The trend of heating up has been increasing & also speeding up over the past 150-200 years, directly correlating with the rise in CO2 (industrial revolution). Things like that transition don't happen that fast naturally unless if you have a major environmental crisis.

[SATAN]

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

But if you're going to make a case for the policies being proposed you better make a rock solid case for them. And I don't think it's a coincidence the policies screw the people while the ones promoting the idea behind "saving the climate" continue to fly around in private jets and live lavishly.

Yeah, man. They should conduct UN meetings via FaceTime or Skype. Problem solved. Totally.

[Rocket]

Many of you are not old enough to remember the climate alarmism in the 70's was a coming ice age. The climate started warming so the same people switched on a dime to "global warming" and then started claiming the world was going to cook in the heat, the polar ice caps would be gone, coastal flooding due to ice melt, the polar bears would all die, etc..... Then when the warming paused they rebranded to simply "climate change" which they use blame any bad weather on. They manipulated data to create computer models to show the world the now debunked "hockey stick" climate model showing global warming accelerating. None of the dire predictions made decades ago have come true. I truly feel sorry for anyone who still buys into the complete and utter bullshit they continue to spew.

[Patrick Chewing]

Many of you are not old enough to remember the climate alarmism in the 70's was a coming ice age. The climate started warming so the same people switched on a dime to "global warming" and then started claiming the world was going to cook in the heat, the polar ice caps would be gone, coastal flooding due to ice melt, the polar bears would all die, etc..... Then when the warming paused they rebranded to simply "climate change" which they use blame any bad weather on. They manipulated data to create computer models to show the world the now debunked "hockey stick" climate model showing global warming accelerating. None of the dire predictions made decades ago have come true. I truly feel sorry for anyone who still buys into the complete and utter bullshit they continue to spew.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/a45/4ae/9195117e3eec0e2f85daaa279977506646-15-time-ice-age-global-warming-covers.h473.w710.jpg

[Off the Court]

Many of you are not old enough to remember the climate alarmism in the 70's was a coming ice age.
JohnnyHick was in his 30s during the 70s so he probably remembers that pretty well.

[bladefd]

Many of you are not old enough to remember the climate alarmism in the 70's was a coming ice age. The climate started warming so the same people switched on a dime to "global warming" and then started claiming the world was going to cook in the heat, the polar ice caps would be gone, coastal flooding due to ice melt, the polar bears would all die, etc..... Then when the warming paused they rebranded to simply "climate change" which they use blame any bad weather on. They manipulated data to create computer models to show the world the now debunked "hockey stick" climate model showing global warming accelerating. None of the dire predictions made decades ago have come true. I truly feel sorry for anyone who still buys into the complete and utter bullshit they continue to spew.

Coming ice age? We have been in an ice age for a couple million years, and we have known that for a while now. Anytime you have glaciers, you are in an ice age.

The climate didn't start warming in the 70s - that was when we first found out it was warming up. It has been warming up in direct correlation with the industrial revolution (which we found out later through ice cores). Warming never paused either.

Global warming and climate change were used interchangeably and still are. The idea is that climate change is a lot more than just warming up. Things like deforestation are also thrown in there too, which creates positive amplification. If anyone tried to intentionally move away from global warming with an actual agenda, it was the Republicans. Did you know that in the early 2000s, there was a republican strategist who pushed an agenda to call it climate change so that Republicans like Bush could argue "the climate is always changing"?

You really are completely clueless on climate change, aren't you?

[outofstomach]

Coming ice age? We have been in an ice age for a couple million years, and we have known that for a while now. Anytime you have glaciers, you are in an ice age.

The climate didn't start warming in the 70s - that was when we first found out it was warming up. It has been warming up in direct correlation with the industrial revolution (which we found out later through ice cores). Warming never paused either.

Global warming and climate change were used interchangeably and still are. The idea is that climate change is a lot more than just warming up. Things like deforestation are also thrown in there too, which creates positive amplification. If anyone tried to intentionally move away from global warming with an actual agenda, it was the Republicans. Did you know that in the early 2000s, there was a republican strategist who pushed an agenda to call it climate change so that Republicans like Bush could argue "the climate is always changing"?

You really are completely clueless on climate change, aren't you?:lol

[outofstomach]

Also consider


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOAvery interesting documentary, im convinced climate alarmism is a farce, however im not swayed at all that climate change is not a thing that people should not keep an eye on

[outofstomach]

The clowns have moved their goalposts to "the climate is always changing so nothing out of the norm!" and "see? It's cold outside and snowing! What global warming?" or nowadays "yes, it's changing but it is not from human doing". My favorite goalpost that I have actually heard before is "warm weather feels good so it's no problem!" :facepalm
gotta maintain that Republican ideology/agenda at all costs

[SATAN]

Did you know that in the early 2000s, there was a republican strategist who pushed an agenda to call it climate change so that Republicans like Bush could argue "the climate is always changing"?

You really are completely clueless on climate change, aren't you?

lol

Big oil/mining companies have been caught out pushing dishonest information the same way the tobacco companies used to but these imbeciles eat it up and claim a vast majority of people who specialize in the field are lying to everyone and everyone else are brainwashed. I even know of at least one religious organization paid off by an oil company to push false information about climate change. Who knows how many more there are. That's without even mentioning politicians. I don't think there's much hope for future generations tbh. It has to get bad enough for people to pull their heads out of their asses.

[Cleverness]

Yeah, man. They should conduct UN meetings via FaceTime or Skype. Problem solved. Totally.

Oh. Do the billionaires that preach about lowering CO2 emissions only fly on their private jets and sail on their yachts when they are traveling to UN meetings?

[Chick Stern]

OP has really flummoxed the Cons with a simple question

[Rocket]

Coming ice age? We have been in an ice age for a couple million years, and we have known that for a while now. Anytime you have glaciers, you are in an ice age.

The climate didn't start warming in the 70s - that was when we first found out it was warming up. It has been warming up in direct correlation with the industrial revolution (which we found out later through ice cores). Warming never paused either.

Global warming and climate change were used interchangeably and still are. The idea is that climate change is a lot more than just warming up. Things like deforestation are also thrown in there too, which creates positive amplification. If anyone tried to intentionally move away from global warming with an actual agenda, it was the Republicans. Did you know that in the early 2000s, there was a republican strategist who pushed an agenda to call it climate change so that Republicans like Bush could argue "the climate is always changing"?

You really are completely clueless on climate change, aren't you?

lol, if you are saying that the climate hysteria being pushed in the 70's was not a coming ice age then you are the clueless one. It does not matter what "age" we are in now it is all about the hysteria and fear porn being pushed by the media in the name of so called "science". Whether you like it or not a coming ice age absolutely was the mantra of the climate fear porn propagandist back in the 70's and was actively pushed by the mainstream media just like it is today with "climate change". It was an "inconvenient truth" for the ice age fear porn merchants that the Earth went into a warming cycle so they shamelessly shifted on a dime and started a new fear porn campaign pushing global warming. When that didn't play out as they hoped they rebranded it to climate change which I have to give them credit was a smart move because it allows them to push hysteria no matter if the Earth is in a warming or cooling cycle all while idiots like you believe every bit of bullshit they spew. As for whatever that idiot Bush said I could not care less. Yes I voted for him and his daddy back in the day because they were the lesser of two evils but I was well aware they were evil MF'ers too who I hate to this day.

I will add that if you are truly a believer in "climate change" and the dire consequences they predict then why are you on the internet on your computer that could not have been made without fossil fuels and also using electricity also likely created by fossil fuels? You should be living in a grass hut and walking everywhere for transportation so your "carbon footprint" is near zero. Funny thing is most leaders who push this bullshit are the worlds worst at creating CO2 because they know it is a con game to push socialism. Some are easily duped by any of the talking heads they see on TV just like we see with the Covidians who are so scared to death by the Covid fear porn created to push the same agenda as climate change.

[bladefd]

lol, if you are saying that the climate hysteria being pushed in the 70's was not a coming ice age then you are the clueless one. It does not matter what "age" we are in now it is all about the hysteria and fear porn being pushed by the media in the name of so called "science". Whether you like it or not a coming ice age absolutely was the mantra of the climate fear porn propagandist back in the 70's and was actively pushed by the mainstream media just like it is today with "climate change". It was an "inconvenient truth" for the ice age fear porn merchants that the Earth went into a warming cycle so they shamelessly shifted on a dime and started a new fear porn campaign pushing global warming. When that didn't play out as they hoped they rebranded it to climate change which I have to give them credit was a smart move because it allows them to push hysteria no matter if the Earth is in a warming or cooling cycle all while idiots like you believe every bit of bullshit they spew. As for whatever that idiot Bush said I could not care less. Yes I voted for him and his daddy back in the day because they were the lesser of two evils but I was well aware they were evil MF'ers too who I hate to this day.

I will add that if you are truly a believer in "climate change" and the dire consequences they predict then why are you on the internet on your computer that could not have been made without fossil fuels and also using electricity also likely created by fossil fuels? You should be living in a grass hut and walking everywhere for transportation so your "carbon footprint" is near zero. Funny thing is most leaders who push this bullshit are the worlds worst at creating CO2 because they know it is a con game to push socialism. Some are easily duped by any of the talking heads they see on TV just like we see with the Covidians who are so scared to death by the Covid fear porn created to push the same agenda as climate change.

The scientific community never were calling for global cooling or incoming ice age in the 70s. It's a faulty argument that is not based in any fact.

Here:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

You are clueless. Go research the issue.

[rawimpact]

The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. It obviously is...

Much like a day, temp changes based on when you measure it -- it's cyclical. On a grander scale such is true, earth has undergone a more significant temp. changes in a cyclical manner.

The real question is whether we humans are impacting it in any SIGNIFICANT way.

The answer to that question is debatable - I personally don't think so or care. I choose to not give a ****.

[bladefd]

The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. It obviously is...

Much like a day, temp changes based on when you measure it -- it's cyclical. On a grander scale such is true, earth has undergone a more significant temp. changes in a cyclical manner.

The real question is whether we humans are impacting it in any SIGNIFICANT way.

The answer to that question is debatable - I personally don't think so or care. I choose to not give a ****.

It's not debatable though that humans are impacting the climate in a significant way. We are pumping the atmosphere with greenhouse gases like co2/methane/etc. Where do you think all that gas goes when released? It doesn't just disappear but rises up to the atmosphere.

I have seen all of these arguments before. Believe it or not, but I actually worked for a non-profit organization for almost 3 years on climate change/global warming as a volunteer studying the issues/compiling data. I have seen the data first hand from a national and regional level across the world. That was from early 2016 to fall of 2018. I have not studied the latest ipcc report or reports in last 3 years since 2018 so I don't know what the latest numbers are. Still, it's very relevant. I can say 100% without a doubt that humans are a significant and the largest contributing factor to climate change easily.

[Patrick Chewing]

The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. It obviously is...

Much like a day, temp changes based on when you measure it -- it's cyclical. On a grander scale such is true, earth has undergone a more significant temp. changes in a cyclical manner.

The real question is whether we humans are impacting it in any SIGNIFICANT way.

The answer to that question is debatable - I personally don't think so or care. I choose to not give a ****.


This. This planet has survived volcanic eruptions, extinction-level meteor strikes, but all of sudden, since the Industrial Revolution, Earth is on it's last legs....:roll:

[SATAN]

The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. It obviously is...

Much like a day, temp changes based on when you measure it -- it's cyclical. On a grander scale such is true, earth has undergone a more significant temp. changes in a cyclical manner.

The real question is whether we humans are impacting it in any SIGNIFICANT way.

The answer to that question is debatable - I personally don't think so or care. I choose to not give a ****.

You are cancer.

[SATAN]

bladefd is very smart. Admit when you're wrong, Patrick Chewing. Grow up and be a better person.

[bladefd]

This. This planet has survived volcanic eruptions, extinction-level meteor strikes, but all of sudden, since the Industrial Revolution, Earth is on it's last legs....:roll:

Of course, the Earth will survive. However, the quality of living will significantly diminish for future generations and the air quality will significantly plummet, mass extinctions/migrations will ensue, storms/drought will be worse. Technically, the effects are already very much noticeable if you study the data, but it will get even worse for children, grandchildren, etc. I know you don't care about future generations or anything or anyone beyond yourself, so I won't argue the point further.

[theman93]

:roll: :roll: :roll: Imagine placing your entire faith in the IPCC's science when they have a history of this:


The IPCC’s controversial recent report estimates net greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by 2050, to keep warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, which it claims would result in dangerous climate changes. Based on their proxy temperature calculations Keeling and Resplandy estimated emissions cuts would have to be 25 percent steeper than IPCC called for in the coming decades to avoid exceeding the two degree cap.

Despite the idiosyncratic approach to calculating ocean temperatures and lack of confirmation or retesting from outside researchers, numerous mainstream-media outlets uncritically (and hysterically) reported the study’s conclusions. Although Keeling and Resplandy quickly acknowledged making the errors Lewis identified, many major media outlets have failed to cover the correction.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” Keeling told various news outlets. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

After correcting their mistake, Keeling found their margin of error range was far larger than they initially believed, between 10 and 70 percent, making their observations virtually worthless as a calculation of ocean temperatures.

https://blog.heartland.org/2018/12/flawed-study-and-new-research-throwing-cold-water-on-climate-fears/

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[j3lademaster]

This. This planet has survived volcanic eruptions, extinction-level meteor strikes, but all of sudden, since the Industrial Revolution, Earth is on it's last legs....:roll:No one is saying that because no one knows what that actually means. There's no controlled variable that allows us to gather concrete data that tells us exactly the point of no return is, but do you really want to find out? What's the harm in erring on the side of caution?

[j3lademaster]

:roll: :roll: :roll: Imagine placing your entire faith in the IPCC's science when they have a history of this:



https://blog.heartland.org/2018/12/flawed-study-and-new-research-throwing-cold-water-on-climate-fears/Scientists are going to be wrong sometimes. So what? We stop listening to them? Who should be the authority on science then? Certainly not you or I.

[theman93]

Scientists are going to be wrong sometimes. So what? We stop listening to them? Who should be the authority on science then? Certainly not you or I.

Who says anybody is the authority on science? Scientists disagree all the time and are wrong a lot when something new is studied - such as this.

The fact that anyone is claiming with 100% absolute certainty that the, "air quality will significantly plummet, mass extinctions/migrations will ensue, storms/drought will be worse" by the next generation is asinine.

[Patrick Chewing]

bladefd is very smart. Admit when you're wrong, Patrick Chewing. Grow up and be a better person.

I am the smartest poster here. All of you are beneath me.

[SATAN]

https://think.kera.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/shutterstock_12184534.jpg

[bladefd]

Scientists are going to be wrong sometimes. So what? We stop listening to them? Who should be the authority on science then? Certainly not you or I.

Akrazotile is a fool. I don't think he understands what science is and how it's done.

Also, the moron didn't even read the very article he posted. It wasn't IPCC that made that mistake but rather the two scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. IPCC is a completely separate independent organization from Scripps.

Here's a better source too rather than some blog:
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oceans-heat-error-20181114-story.html

[SATAN]

:oldlol:

bladefd continues to obliterate these fools.

:bowdown:

[theman93]

The authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest as the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. Anyone taking their findings at face value is a fool. No surprise with bladefd as he willfully allows big government to pull the wool over his eyes.

Consider the following instead: https://colloquydowneast.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NIPCC.pdf

[Nanners]

Who says anybody is the authority on science? Scientists disagree all the time and are wrong a lot when something new is studied - such as this.

The fact that anyone is claiming with 100% absolute certainty that the, "air quality will significantly plummet, mass extinctions/migrations will ensue, storms/drought will be worse" by the next generation is asinine.

Anybody who thinks that we should outsource all our thinking to an "authority" on science knows nothing about science or history. Science isnt a fact or an object, science is a self correcting process. Science doesnt become any more or less true depending on where you college or how prestigious your position is within society. Ultimately the only thing that really matters in science is accurately collecting facts/data, then analyzing it in an honest and intelligent way... and there are countless examples throughout history of the "authority" attacking/suppressing/disregarding science that would later be proven to be extremely important/influential.

Copernicus was relentlessly attacked/"discredited" by the "authorities" in his day, for the crime of suggesting that the sun might be the center of the solar system.

Galileo faced legal trials twice for heresy books were all banned and after losing the second trial he was forced to recant all his work and spent the final decade of his life either in prison or house arrest.

Kepler was largely ignored in his day (even by his peers like Galileo), but his work later became the foundation for Newtons theory of gravity and his refracting telescope.

Mendel basically created the entire field of genetics with his discovery of genetic inheritance, but his work was completely ignored during his lifetime (not for lack of trying on his part) and only started to gain mainstream attention 15 years after his death.

Tesla might be the greatest scientist of all time, and while he had some success in life, he faced enormous opposition from the "establishment" (the oil barons, the bankers, Edison, etc) his entire life and died penniless and alone.


Anyway, if we had blindly followed what the "authorities" on science were saying throughout all of human history... NPCs like blade would probably be trying to burn witches at the stake right now.

[bladefd]

There is no central authority, which is why science works. You follow the data and evidence wherever it leads. Data/evidence is king in science. That data without a doubt shows that humans are a very significant contributor to climate change. The ipcc is just one of the reports I studied - there was some reports from noaa, nasa, couple other climate organizations I forget off-hand without looking back at my notes. Ipcc was the biggest and most detailed though, breaking down the issue by every region across the world. It took me 6 months to get through it as part of my assignment.

Science improves as more data is collected and computer models are improved over time. Pretty much all of the models show that "air quality will significantly plummet, mass extinctions/migrations will ensue, storms/drought will be worse". And no I didn't mention by next generation. I said it will continue to degrade as climate changes continues to worsen. Study the data, and it should be crystal clear that is exactly the path we are on (note "we are" and not "we will be").

[BurningHammer]

:cletus:

Okay, bro.

[Nanners]

There is no central authority, which is why science works. You follow the data and evidence wherever it leads. Data/evidence is king in science. That data without a doubt shows that humans are a very significant contributor to climate change. The ipcc is just one of the reports I studied - there was some reports from noaa, nasa, couple other climate organizations I forget off-hand without looking back at my notes. Ipcc was the biggest and most detailed though, breaking down the issue by every region across the world. It took me 6 months to get through it as part of my assignment.

Science improves as more data is collected and computer models are improved over time. Pretty much all of the models show that "air quality will significantly plummet, mass extinctions/migrations will ensue, storms/drought will be worse". And no I didn't mention by next generation. I said it will continue to degrade as climate changes continues to worsen. Study the data, and it should be crystal clear that is exactly the path we are on (note "we are" and not "we will be").

Computer models are not data or evidence, they are just speculation.

Heres a scientific fact for you - Humanity survived truly MASSIVE and RAPID climate changes at the end of the last ice age (~10k years ago), so the idea that the future of humanity is at risk over slow and gradual warming is beyond laughable considering we know for a fact that hunter/gatherers were able to survive climate changes that were orders of magnitude more extreme and rapid than anything any computer model is saying we are facing.

Fact - currently the ocean is rising at a rate of 0.14 inches per year (about ~1 foot every 100 years). During the younger dryas (the beginning of the end of the last ice age) the sea rose by 42 feet in 290 years (~14ft per 100y)... and yet somehow man survived.

[bladefd]

Computer models are not data or evidence, they are just speculation.

Heres a scientific fact for you - Humanity survived truly MASSIVE and RAPID climate changes at the end of the last ice age (~10k years ago), so the idea that the future of humanity is at risk over slow and gradual warming is beyond laughable considering we know for a fact that hunter/gatherers were able to survive climate changes that were orders of magnitude more extreme and rapid than anything any computer model is saying we are facing.

Fact - currently the ocean is rising at a rate of 0.14 inches per year (about ~1 foot every 100 years). During the younger dryas (the beginning of the end of the last ice age) the sea rose by 42 feet in 290 years (~14ft per 100y)... and yet somehow man survived.

Who is talking about humanity's survival? I'm talking about air quality, mass extinctions, worsening storms. Not the end of humanity or the end of earth but rather damaging quality of life of our future generations/ecology. These things are already observable and nothing to take lightly.

Even if you don't believe in climate change being a big issue, there is no reason we should be okay with chopping down entire forests (for wood and making room for excessive grazing lands), polluting our planet with fossil fuels pulled from deep underground, overfishing, filling landfills with plastic waste that will take centuries to break down, etc. It's not just the atmosphere that is an issue or on land, but the oceans too. There are entire dead zones in the oceans and will be more as the oceans absorb more of all that co2 we are pumping.

We have the power to control those things - something like replacing coal with solar power or more wind turbines or nuclear on standby 24/7 when necessary would do much to cut down on our impact. Why would you be opposed to that?

And no, computer models are not just speculation. Computer models use data (petabytes of data), mathematical algorithms and factors to create probabilistic projections (good models usually provide a range of scenarios based on probability). Nowadays these models are so complex with so much data that they require supercomputers to run. Yes, they have a room for error and have been wrong certainly. I would not take them over the actual evidence/datasets themselves. However, I would definitely give them more credence than pattychew or akrazotile or nanners sitting there proclaiming "oh its all good. Nothing is wrong. Our planet has been through it all so it's all good. Let's drill baby drill!!"

https://allyphantonparade.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/iu.jpeg

[bladefd]

I am wondering something. Why did you buy a tesla? Was it because of cool new tech or low maintenance costs or was there an environmental reason or all of the above?

[Nanners]

I am wondering something. Why did you buy a tesla? Was it because of cool new tech or low maintenance costs or was there an environmental reason or all of the above?

Electric cars do absolutely nothing to help the environment. Lithium mining is one of the most environmentally destructive activities taking place on this planet right now. If you care about the environment the best car to buy is a 10+ year old Toyota or Honda.

Anyway I bought my Tesla for 1 reason - its fast as fvck (my model 3 does 0-60 in 3.0 sec). Also it doesnt hurt that its incredibly comfy and fun to drive in general. Also theres 1 other reason - the govt and elites hate gas cars and they want electric cars to be the future (and they're willing to make gas cost a million per gallon in order to make their preferred future more possible), so why not jump on the e-car bandwagon right now?

If you havent experienced an electric motor at full throttle go to your local tesla dealer and tell them you want to try a high end S or the 3P... I have owned a lot of fast combustion vehicles in my life but none of them are comparable to the feeling I get at full throttle on the Tesla (and they would all get dusted too). When I was growing up, 0-60 in 4 seconds was a level of acceleration only available to a handful of high end lambos and ferraris... doing 0-60 in 3.0 seconds in a silent sedan is so absurd its funny

[bladefd]

I don't know a lot about lithium mining but I'm pretty sure it is not worse or dirtier than coal mining. I will look up the specifics later.

[Nanners]

Of course you dont, you dont know about anything

I still love you tho... the same way a father loves the retarded son that he failed to strangle on more than one occasion

[bladefd]

Yeah, I can't find a source that directly compares lithium mining to coal mining. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The main two issues I see is that lithium mining requires tons of water, and sometimes cobalt/manganese are leaked into the surrounding ground. Having said that, none of the 3 are greenhouse gases so they do not contribute to climate change. Do you understand that? I don't think you will - your response most likely will be to lash out with more personal attacks. I'm used to it and I'm sure most of ISH is too.

When we bring carbon into the mix (CO2 is an actual greenhouse gas), it's not even close. Some countries more so than others, depending on the amount of coal they burn for their electricity.


According to the study, the life cycle emissions of a BEV driving around in Europe today are 66–69 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered car. In the US, that range is 60–68 percent less over its lifetime. In China and India, the magnitude is not as great, but even so, a BEV is still cleaner than a fossil-burner. China is at 37–45 percent fewer emissions for BEVs, and India shows 19–34 percent.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-fig1-jul2021_0.pnghttps://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/

[Nanners]

Yeah, I can't find a source that directly compares lithium mining to coal mining. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The main two issues I see is that lithium mining requires tons of water, and sometimes cobalt/manganese are leaked into the surrounding ground. Having said that, none of the 3 are greenhouse gases so they do not contribute to climate change. Do you understand that? I don't think you will - your response most likely will be to lash out with more personal attacks. I'm used to it and I'm sure most of ISH is too.

Lithium mining produces a lot more waste than coal, but its highly concentrated in small areas, while modern coal mining is basically removing entire mountain tops... theyre kinda hard to compare, neither are good for the environment.


When we bring carbon into the mix (CO2 is an actual greenhouse gas), it's not even close. Some countries more so than others, depending on the amount of coal they burn for their electricity.

This chart ignores opportunity cost. An electric car is obviously better for emissions over its lifetime than anything gas powered, but building new cars creates pollution and waste. While an electric car supposedly has better emissions than a combustion car, it takes a lot of resources and energy to build every electric car. IMHO the most environmentally friendly transportation in the US is probably a 20 year old Honda Civic or Toyota Camry... yes they burn (a relatively small) gas, but driving some kind of economical used car is overall a huge energy/pollution savings for the environment versus something that is brand new and electric.

[outofstomach]

This. This planet has survived volcanic eruptions, extinction-level meteor strikes, but all of sudden, since the Industrial Revolution, Earth is on it's last legs....:roll:
those are natural disasters versus sending actual man made pollutants up into the sky nonstop are you rètarded? :lol about to block your dumbass

[outofstomach]

Akrazotile is a fool. I don't think he understands what science is and how it's done.

Also, the moron didn't even read the very article he posted. It wasn't IPCC that made that mistake but rather the two scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. IPCC is a completely separate independent organization from Scripps.

Here's a better source too rather than some blog:
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oceans-heat-error-20181114-story.html
:lol

[bladefd]

Lithium mining produces a lot more waste than coal, but its highly concentrated in small areas, while modern coal mining is basically removing entire mountain tops... theyre kinda hard to compare, neither are good for the environment.



This chart ignores opportunity cost. An electric car is obviously better for emissions over its lifetime than anything gas powered, but building new cars creates pollution and waste. While an electric car supposedly has better emissions than a combustion car, it takes a lot of resources and energy to build every electric car. IMHO the most environmentally friendly transportation in the US is probably a 20 year old Honda Civic or Toyota Camry... yes they burn (a relatively small) gas, but driving some kind of economical used car is overall a huge energy/pollution savings for the environment versus something that is brand new and electric.

Find me a source that lithium mining produces a lot more waste than coal. I'm not saying lithium mining is clean - just cleaner than coal.

It's not like at the end of a Tesla's life, you just toss the batteries in some landfill & call it the end. Lithium batteries can be recycled and reused in the manufacturing of new batteries. There is no doubt electric cars is where the future lies, and I'm hoping hydrogen cars can also come into play soon, at least within this decade.

If you consider the full lifecycle of an electric car including recycling of lithium down the road & significantly less greenhouse gas emission altogether, electric car is the answer over ICE. I do not agree that 20yr Honda Civic is a better option than say a Tesla if you can afford one. Tesla will probably last you next 30yrs minimum with the latest batteries guaranteed to last 500k miles, meanwhile the 20yr Civic might last you a few years depending on how many miles it has then you are back to searching for another car. The cost of maintenance would be pretty high too for a car that old. How do I know? Because my dad has a 23yr old Toyota Corolla. It has around 225k miles on it, and it's not worth keeping now with quite a few issues including with the wheelbase (fixing them all would cost more than the car itself). He is waiting for cost of used cars to get a bit better before he replaces that car & only drives it locally to Costco or food market or his work 10mins away.

[SATAN]

those are natural disasters versus sending actual man made pollutants up into the sky nonstop are you rètarded? :lol about to block your dumbass

:oldlol:

[Nanners]

Find me a source that lithium mining produces a lot more waste than coal. I'm not saying lithium mining is clean - just cleaner than coal.

It's not like at the end of a Tesla's life, you just toss the batteries in some landfill & call it the end. Lithium batteries can be recycled and reused in the manufacturing of new batteries. There is no doubt electric cars is where the future lies, and I'm hoping hydrogen cars can also come into play soon, at least within this decade.

If you consider the full lifecycle of an electric car including recycling of lithium down the road & significantly less greenhouse gas emission altogether, electric car is the answer over ICE. I do not agree that 20yr Honda Civic is a better option than say a Tesla if you can afford one. Tesla will probably last you next 30yrs minimum with the latest batteries guaranteed to last 500k miles, meanwhile the 20yr Civic might last you a few years depending on how many miles it has then you are back to searching for another car. The cost of maintenance would be pretty high too for a car that old. How do I know? Because my dad has a 23yr old Toyota Corolla. It has around 225k miles on it, and it's not worth keeping now with quite a few issues including with the wheelbase (fixing them all would cost more than the car itself). He is waiting for cost of used cars to get a bit better before he replaces that car & only drives it locally to Costco or food market or his work 10mins away.

Why would I bother to find a source (that you wont read) when you cant even be bothered to read the post that you have quoted?

https://i.ibb.co/cQbjt7v/1630542243335.jpg

I cant wait to toss my tesla in a landfill someday

[bladefd]

Why would I bother to find a source (that you wont read) when you cant even be bothered to read the post that you have quoted?

I cant wait to toss my tesla in a landfill someday

Yeah, you have no source. I thought so.

[Nanners]

Yeah, you have no source. I thought so.

You dont have "thoughts"

[Lakers Legend#32]

It's on FOX. Ask Tucker.

[BurningHammer]

You dont have "thoughts"

When you lose arguments....

[Patrick Chewing]

Yeah, you have no source. I thought so.

It's been proven that you don't do your research, so we're all just wasting our time when talking to you.

[Akeem34TheDream]

I can understand not giving a shit about the climate change. You might not care about the next generations, you might not want to sacrifice your luxury. These are understandable human behaviors but thinking climate change is not real? That is stupid. Sure some people exaggarate it, some people did terrible estimations in the past and there is some fear porn going on. With all that said, climate change is real and arguing otherwise is very very very idiotic. Its effects are seen in the most of the world. Next time please just say I dont care. Its a lot more honest.

[Lakers Legend#32]

It's been proven that you don't do your research, so we're all just wasting our time when talking to you.

Poopsie's idea of research. Going on line to find out information that already confirms his position.