I’m not denying it doesn’t happen, but to assume all people who wear mascot costumes, or are furries, smoke crack and fuck all day in costume is a massive fallacy.
Personally? It's kind of a rubbish word, that doesn't even exist where I'm from (though they're they're trying to make it a thing - thank you USA). How you feel about what sex you are changes nothing. Of course it's on a spectrum if people know they have a choice; everything is. But they're still just a dude or a lady, sometimes born in the wrong body.
By the way, this obsession with 'identities' of all sorts of my fellow leftoids annoys me to no end. We're all human, and the planet we're living on is rapidly going to shit. We need to get our shit together and build more nuclear power plants now.
As for you, some mild ones (nothing about Jews and history)
how do you feel about global warming
how do you feel about evolution
how do you feel about the autism - vaccines correlation
global warming is real but we cant stop it without destroying the third world because fucked if im going to reduce my quality of life for the benefit of somewhere like india
evolution is a real thing but people acting smug about it dont actually know anything about it because its incredibly complicated
and vaccines work and are real medicine but they can also fuck you up, theyre not a universal good
with all medicine you need to gauge whether the benefits outweigh the risk, and of course theres a risk of negative reactions
Not the person you asked or a liberal, but I think that the social construct we call "gender" has no intrinsic meaning and thus you're free to identify as any gender, just don't expect me to respect it.
Because anti-intellectualism has been ingrained in American culture since pretty much the start.
There's always been a deep distrust of anything "official" be it the government, the media, science, education, etc etc. This isn't such a big problem as long as it's not exploited for political gain.
Well, the GOP, many years ago, faced with a demographics death spiral decided that rather than change their platform or appeal to the majority of the country, they'd just double down on the least intelligent and least aware American citizens.
This is the root of the extreme anti-intellectualism you see within the republican party, the GOP has created a siege mentality within a small, minority base, that due to their geographical spread have more power than the majority.
The conservative siege mentality applies to everything.
Science is rigged against them.
School is rigged against them.
The media is rigged against them.
The UN is rigged against them.
Math is rigged against them.
Reality is rigged against them.
It isn't that they're just wrong, it's that the entire world is conspiring to make them look bad.
Do I need to compile a list of everything the "conventional wisdom", "public policy thinktanks", universities, scientific community etc have been wrong about?
It's not that they all coincidentally unanimously decide to lie. It's that they all draw their water from the same small source, and whatever they draw, they repeat.
Yes 97 percent of scientists agree, but only a fraction of them have any access to the actual models. The rest just say "yes, if all this information is correct as presented, then I agree". However the models are bunk, they had to be retrofitted to obtain the information they wanted because they didn't give them what they wanted, and it's absolutely conceivable that the small number of scientists actually in charge of this particular issue are explicitly looking for what they are told to look for and not looking too hard for contradicting information.
Remember the hockey stick. All righthinking people were in complete agreement that the hockey stick was sacred and complete truth. Then an independent scientist demonstrates that oops, it's not accurate at all, so they all quietly drop it and pretend it never existed.
This is how pretty much everything works nowadays. Government dollars have entered every domain, the government wants particular things, if you deliver them the money keeps coming, if you say otherwise you are shunned and suddenly outside the lucrative bubble.
It's not that they all coincidentally unanimously decide to lie. It's that they all draw their water from the same small source, and whatever they draw, they repeat, and they aren't that especially interested in looking into the source.
So now we've gone from "they lied" to "well they didn't lie, but here let me make up some other bullshit in an effort to spin out of the fact I was just called on my bullshit."
Yes 97 percent of scientists agree, but only a fraction of them have any access to the actual models. The rest just say "yes, if all this information is correct as presented, then I agree". However the models are bunk, they had to be retrofitted to obtain the information they wanted because they didn't give them what they wanted, and it's absolutely conceivable that the small number of scientists actually in charge of this particular issue are explicitly looking for what they are told to look for and not looking too hard for contradicting information.
Few things.
A) No, the models are not "bunk" you got that from standard climate denier sources, they constantly claim the models are "bunk" which has no basis in reality. It's a lie.
B) No, that's not how a scientific consensus works and again, I have no idea where it is you got this information from. The consensus is obtained by looking at the results of academic research and looking at the conclusions. So when you see people say the consensus is clear, that isn't them saying they asked a bunch of people and had those people give their best guess, they asked publishing climate scientists what the research says.
So far you've revealed you have no idea what you're talking about on even a base level. You're just repeating things you've heard on louder with crowder or via other highly misinformed sources of information, likely American republican propaganda.
This is how pretty much everything works nowadays. Government dollars have entered every domain, the government wants particular things, if you deliver them the money keeps coming, if you say otherwise you are shunned and suddenly outside the lucrative bubble.
one more time, just so we're clear here.
This is not the US government saying anything. It is the entire planet, it is every scientific org in every relevant country across every side of the political spectrum.
Literally the only people on the planet, the only mainstream political party on earth denying climate change is the republican party. So, given you've already revealed the fact you're low-information, let's ask a question.
what is more likely here? The entire planet, every political party and every scientific org on the planet earth is involved in a conspiracy to make you and your tribe look bad, or you're just wrong ?
Your post is standard boilerplate not I'm interested in addressing, but lets just focus on this part:
the only people on the planet, the only mainstream political party on earth denying climate change is the republican party.
Yet how many people would actually know even the tiniest bit about the issue? Like I said before, we are literally all relying on the very, very tiny number of scientists who have access to the actual models. Yes? We can agree on that part?
A very tiny number of scientists, who do their work behind closed doors, do not let people see their methods, and are on government payroll.
It makes NO DIFFERENCE how many people or countries "believe" them. They don't have any more information than anyone else. This is an appeal to consensus fallacy. Debate the argument, not how many people believe it.
Why can't laymen just accept that the experts know more than they do?
It's known that temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates and that greenhouse gas emissions have such an effect.
Most predictions based on GHG emissions have accurately predicted climate change, although the minority of sensationalist predictions reported by the press didn't.
talk to any pro climate-change person and they will say tax incentives aren't enough. usa has high carbon per capita because our daily life quality is better than other countries and we have a lot of people. asia has higher carbon emissions but lower per capita because their quality of life as a whole is shitty. there's literally no solution besides usa economy suffering while china's keeps improving and then becoming the leader.
Paris Accords are meant to be a means by which further treaties can be enacted, not the end goal. Also, China has carbon tax.
Tax incentives do incentivise companies to cut down on net carbon emissions, even if they don't incentivise consumers to do so. This has been seen by different countries which implemented carbon taxes.
the carbon emissions from tax incentives wouldn't be enough is what i said. for what these "scientists" project we would literally need to like destroy our economy. they keep hyping it up which is creating more doubt.
it returns back to the point of we could destroy our economy, but china will keep growing and their emissions go up per capita while their quality of life improves. china becoming the leading economy is not good for obvious reasons. say what you want about usa, but china is worse.
Do you not think climate scientists are actual scientists?
we would literally need to like destroy our economy.
Not really; renewable is cheap nowadays.
they keep hyping it up
Random "science educators" and shit do; normal climate scientists avod hyperbole and sensationalism.
they've been wrong a lot of the time here with their projects.
Not really; most respected cliamte science papers made correct predictions regarding the current situation. Highly publicised pop-science claims didn't, but that's not really climate science.
china is doing carbon taxes but it's not enough for when their quality of life keeps improving, then it goes up.
i'm not denying they're real scientists. what i do suggest is someone has to fund research and where that funding comes puts their projection algorithms in question. there's already major fields in the sciences that have the replication crisis too. that doesn't touch upon algorithms but it's the same deal. again, not denying climate change is real, but when they say "we must do yada yada", that's when i put doubt. if you say those aren't "real climate scientists" well, okay then.
im not saying we shouldn't reduce carbon emissions, if that leads to cleaner air, great. usa is on a path to reducing our emissions already, a lot of being free market changes already, but there's a lot of voices saying we need to do drastic changes. that puts up red flags for me. doing drastic changes means tanking the economy and handicaps the usa for china to then becoming the leading economy.
in terms of making climate change not a threat, i don't see any possibility besides new technology though. i see the only way of that happening is from we're actually all going to die from global warming or someone finds a way to get money from reducing the emissions.
drastic changes meaning, stop all use of coal or any "unclean" energy. even though those are most cost efficient right now still (i believe).
carbon taxes aren't incentive enough for actual new technology, just readapting previous technology. i would imagine for actual serious change for carbon emissions we would need to introduce new technology or make the current ways with clean energy incredibly cheaper.
Yeah, I don't agree with such statements. I don't think most people advocate that, though; to my knowledge the emphasis is on steady but gradually shifts towards renewables, not sudden changes.
You're right that fossil fuels are currently cheapest, although that's changing.
carbon taxes aren't incentive enough for actual new technology, just readapting previous technology.
That's true; carbon taxes incentivise for reduction in GHG production using existing technology, not production of new technology.
i would imagine for actual serious change for carbon emissions we would need to introduce new technology
Lots of other stuff can also help, for example gradually phasing out fossil fuels in favour of clean energy, or planting trees.
make the current ways with clean energy incredibly cheaper.
Clean energy prices are decreasing, especially regarding renewables. This is actually one of the things driving clean energy adoption right now; it's more cost effective.
For example, my native Pakistan favours hydroelectric energy, mainly because we have lots of rivers and don't have to import fossil fuels that way.
You know what's really going to rustle the world economy's jimmies? When food and water security become an issue potentially to the point of conflict between states and nations, and when coastal areas become inundated to the point of causing large scale human migration to less affected or more habitable areas. When large parts of florida, the gulf, the eastern seaboard become chronically inundated to the point they basically have to be abandoned and ports have to be rebuilt.
there's already major fields in the sciences that have the replication crisis too.
That's medical and social sciences, not natural sciences like geology, metereology, geochemistry, climatology. The best part about a lot of those sciences is the source data is usually widely available from governmental remote sensing, survey, and direct reading stations. The only thing done to it is processing via methods, software, and mathematics/statistics. It is easily replicable if one has the education to do so. Many medical studies have a problem because the data is often collected during a particular study using different methods, sometimes public sometimes by private pharm companies; these studies are often VERY expensive just in the data collection alone to either do initially or replicate.
what about the algorithms for any of these projections? that's where i still have the doubt in. for how they're coming to these conclusions is it out in the open for someone to try and replicate? i'm sincerely asking and not trying to argue.
me bringing up replication crisis and where funding comes from was to show that science isn't infallible and numbers can be pushed around to prove whatever you want.
for how they're coming to these conclusions is it out in the open for someone to try and replicate?
Yes, in the published literature and IPCC reports. However, many aren't just simple programs or equations the layperson can fundamentally understand and manipulate intelligently, so, be warned. Some models require a lot of compute power, so some are not really able to be done efficiently on a normal desktop/laptop at a high resolution, but the underlying math is always there.
what about the algorithms for any of these projections? that's where i still have the doubt in. for how they're coming to these conclusions is it out in the open for someone to try and replicate?
Any serious scientific study has to provide the necessary information regarding its methodology for other scientists replicate it, so yes. However, as a layman you may be unable to replicate it, ro udnerstand how to replicate it, yourself.
Well you can check how the old model predictions look compared to observed data. The models have been pretty accurate so far, even models made in the 80s hold up pretty well.
The best part about a lot of those sciences is the source data is usually widely available from governmental remote sensing, survey, and direct reading stations.
This is assuming, of course, you trust how the source data is measured, which you probably should. For example, research teams measure historical carbon dioxide elvels very accurately through examination of ice sheet cores.
fines and shit do not lead to new technology. it leads to businesses finding loopholes or whatever. look at anything oil related and how technology grows there.
NPR had a study recently that increasing public funding for certain technology fields showed no effect on the pace of technological innovation/new discoveries in those fields
I can't find anything on Google or duckduckgo about it right now, but it was 3 or 4 months ago that they were discussing it. I don't recall them mentioning studying the effect that taxes had at all
I guess they may have been wrong then, but I find this interesting:
Analysis: By Andrew Walker, BBC economics correspondent:
Paul Romer has focussed on the positive side-effects of technological change. He argued that innovators often don't get all the benefit of what they do, so market economies left to their own devices tend not generate enough new ideas.
Addressing this shortfall, he suggests, requires for well-designed government action to stimulate more innovation, such as subsides for research and development.
So is that what the data points towards or his interpretation? I'm finding it hard to find the paper itself, just articles about it and the "Endogenous Growth Theory"
And not to pretend to be smarter than a PhD but the wiki page Endogenous Growth Theory states "For example, subsidies for research and development or education increase the growth rate in some endogenous growth models by increasing the incentive for innovation."
meanwhile Paul Krugman another Economics Nobel Prize winner criticizes this theory: Paul Krugman criticized endogenous growth theory as nearly impossible to check by empirical evidence; “too much of it involved making assumptions about how unmeasurable things affected other unmeasurable things.”
I guess they may have been wrong, but I find this interesting:
Analysis: By Andrew Walker, BBC economics correspondent
Paul Romer has focussed on the positive side-effects of technological change. He argued that innovators often don't get all the benefit of what they do, so market economies left to their own devices tend not generate enough new ideas.
Addressing this shortfall, he suggests, requires for well-designed government action to stimulate more innovation, such as subsides for research and development.
So is that what the data points towards or his suggestion? I can't find the actual paper Romer wrote and I don't exactly trust a journalist make an unbiased interpretation of a PhD's data
Nah you don't sound like your typical retarded right winger /r/conservative poster at all..
really the only hope is new technology like i said. that's the most centrist take here. it's not denying climate change, it's denying what scientists are suggesting we do to solve it.
Well we've got your opinion on this, and we've got literally millions of right wingers saying outright that it's a hoax done by the Globalists and/or Clintons, so we're going to have to go ahead and not listen to you, because saying "if we do anything then CHINA" is basically just a Trumpian level bullshit excuse with no basis in anything.
Just as you should rely on climate sciences for understanding the climate one should rely on economists to understand how to tackle economic issues.
there's literally no solution besides usa economy suffering while china's keeps improving and then becoming the leader
Carbon taxes wouldn't harm the US economy. Its pretty funny that you think the inevitable China having a larger economy then the US is anything meaningful though.
why do you think carbon taxes, which place emphasis on using something like solar energy (which is less cost efficient), wouldn't hurt the economy? if it was beneficial for the economy wouldn't all the smaller countries applying more clean energy opposed to fossil fuels be doing better than they are now?
i think most economists are full of shit too, and most of the time they're wrong.
Doesn't take into account the externalized cost of the use of fossil fuel resources. It only considers the cost at extraction/point of use, which is low. It does not take into account the very real costs that are incurred by pollution (during/after extraction), and GHG accumulation/climate change effects. Economies and societies at large bear those costs instead of the cost being included up front in each ton of coal or gallon of gas. When you consider those costs as intrinsic to use of fossils fuels, alternative energy sources only look better than they already do.
Solar also emits pollution during extraction of the minerals and production of the panels, but not really while in use generating electricity, and those processes can be made cleaner or alternative materials may be developed for PV cells etc.
let's say it is more cost efficient and you're right. wouldn't the economies of everyone using more solar energy (or close to) be doing better right now? also, why would china be using more coal now where they don't have to deal with things politically like us if it was more cost efficient?
I think you did not understand what I was trying to communicate. Fossil fuels are cheaper in many large markets, at the point of sale, as long as the costs of the consequences of climate change and air pollution are EXTERNALIZED from the cost of the fuel itself. That's how economics values things in the short term, which is usually more than in the long term. My point is that fossil fuels are not as cost efficient as their nominal price per unit market value indicates. For an equal comparison to be made you have to include that in, but that's somewhat difficult and nuanced, and relies on future projections, or can only be empirically known once in the rear-veiw mirror, which is problematic to price things in the present.
These costs are also delayed somewhat, as some of these systems take a while to respond to input, and have different 'tipping points' and interactions with other systems.It's also hard to put a cost on the climate changing in parts of the world, seasons becoming longer/shorter, etc. Like there are a lot more 95-100+ days each year during the summer where I grew up than there was back then; there seems to be far shorter seasons for snowsports, and the quality during those seasons is reduced; droughts have weakened large swaths of conifer forests in the american west (with the help of pine beetles), many look quite devastated and ugly. How do you value that? It sucks, but how can you place value on human enjoyment etc?
which place emphasis on using something like solar energy
Carbon taxes dont pick winners, they just ensure the cost of energy production reflect the true cost of producing energy.
wouldn't hurt the economy
Carbon taxes could be revenue neutral pretty easily.
if it was beneficial for the economy wouldn't all the smaller countries applying more clean energy opposed to fossil fuels be doing better than they are now
Do you have evidence they are not?
it's more economically sound to wait until the technology is better for clean energy before switching from something like coal/oil anyways.
How can you claim economists are fully of shit and then attempt to make a (stupid) economics based argument in the same sentence? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child to be this stupid?
So people who spend their entire lives researching economics are full of shit but you are not? You are a real special snowflake cuck.
i dont think it's inevitable china will have a bigger economy either
Then you are fucking stupid. China has a population almost 6 times larger than the US.
The main proposals that they want would be to have a 50$/gallon carbon tax and to effectively remove US companies profit margins so that the money can be sent to India and China.
Every scientist who has corroborated the warming effects of CO2 has been paid off by anti-capitalists. Every temperature measurement station gets a wad of cash under the door to "calibrate" the temperature hotter every year. You would know this if you weren't an ignorant libtard.
I unironically believe that academia has become less trusted due to perceived bias against conservatives in the soft sciences/(gender, ethnic etc) studies and as a result distrust has spread to the hard sciences.
This is obviously massively exacerbated by Republican politicians who deny the existence of global warming but I fear the Academy isn't doing itself any favors. Why do people have to be so fucking dumb?
Let's see, the experts were wrong about fats, leading to the deaths of millions, socialism, leading to the deaths of millions, macroeconomics leading to financial collapse,
And then don't even begin to know how to accurately model something so giant and complex as the climate. Even in there they have a long bad track record - the hockey stick, the historic relationship between CO2 and temperature, average annual variance, temperature rises, ice levels, etc.
They don't have a clue what they're talking about and almost no one really believes in it any more.
If you cant be sure of the claim (which is actually retarded but not the point) consider potential outcomes.
If science/the world is right and we:
do nothing, millions die its catastrophic and conditions are horrific everywhere that still has people.
address problems now, were obviously better off as are future generattion
If they are wrong or off and we
do nothing, status quo maintained but environmental issues will have to be addressed in the future
address problems, we have spent time and effort making conditions more environmentally smart and sound for the future.
The people trying to stop environmental development are protecting their monetary interests and nothing else. It benefits no one but oil companies etc to wait
And no it's not more and more "deep shit" that is supposed to happen each year, it's a feedback loop that continues being under increasing pressure and eventually will break. The problem it's nearly impossible to communicate that sort of uncertainty and complexity to the lay public, particularly one with such poor scientific education.
they don't even begin to know how to accurately model something so giant and complex as the climate. Even in there they have a long bad track record - the hockey stick, the historic relationship between CO2 and temperature, average annual variance, predicting temperature rises, ice levels, etc.
They really don't, though; most predictions by well-respected academic papers have come true.
We were supposed to be in deep shit each year so far
Your fualt then for thinking random clickbait sites and sensationalist "science educators" are synonymous with actual climate scientists.
They really don't, though; most predictions by well-respected academic papers have come true.
Like the hockey stick?
Like us being underwater by now?
Like the arctic ice cap growing incredibly fast?
Climate is impossible to predict and most of their predictions have been wrong, some things they have unanimously agreed to be 100% true ended up wrong.
Climate being what it is, sometimes it's warmer, sometimes less ice, but sometimes the opposite. Any general trend is pretty hard to discern, and certainly not what they've been saying.
It's not just a theory, everything I typed was a fact. What I described above (the Greenhouse effect) is the reason why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being about as close to the sun as Earth is, it's reason why the earth is on average 50 degrees rather than 0 degrees, and it's the reason why the planet has been getting warmer.
Either, way why should I trust that graph at all? It doesn't have an x axis for either temperature or CO2 values. I have only found one author who used the figure, and he and most of the people he is affiliated don't have very good credentials at all. It's quite an interesting rabbit hole but I don't have time to go down it now.
What is that graph supposed to show? The chart starts 450,000 years ago, with anything relevant to humanity (or at least civilization) jammed up in the last 1/10th of the chart, showing that temperatures for the last ~10,000 years have been within the same range (+/-2) and comparable in temp to previous warm periods, with CO2 seeming to correlate to some degree. What am I supposed to see? Is it the red vertical line at the right most side?
Btw, is ppm a measure of relative proportion? And when you say 30% higher you mean from ~290ppm to ~370ppm? Since we are talking parts per million, wouldn't is also be accurate to say that is a <0.01% total increase?
You still need to do actual science though, we did so we know you're right, but it could just as easily been found out that our burning of coal was the equivalent of dropping a teaspoon of salt into lake Michigan and worrying about it becoming saltwater.
When we go into this kind of "you don't even have to have proof" thinking we validate the weird jumps of logic and invalid assumptions climate deniers use to "prove" there is no climate change.
It was so disappointing to see one prominent anti-Gamergate person realize that maybe his clique wasn't so great after all... and then pull a 180 and become Milo's gunsel.
I think a lot of these retards were hardcore left / SJW types and - because they're retarded - the moment they find something wrong or idiotic about SJWs, they immediately flip to the opposite spectrum of idiocy. SMH when people haven't accepted the doctrine of radical centrism.
At first I thought this was Jordan lobsterson, but surmise my surprise when the guy from HeatStreet appears.
Everyone knows climate change is what is going to kill us. People will not stop polluting naturally. The only solution is to hope that when humanity starts feeling the effects and billions are dead, what is left of humanity starts getting its act together.
Everyone knows climate change is what is going to kill us. People will not stop polluting naturally or through incentives because they are filthy rich.
There's a certain level of comfort where wealthy people start giving a shit about being environmentally conscious and are willing to pay for it. So the solution is more capitalism not less capitalism. Like everything else.
The best is his comments down the chain where he calls climate change fake alarmism and points to a news story about how global warming is going to cause entire nations to be underwater.
climate change is real but jumping to dumb conclusions like al gore is dumb
the western world largely cant do shit to combat it unless china and india pull their fingers out and actually do something
also the powers that be see it more as a tool of controlling people rather than being pro environment
here in australia fags always complain that we arent doing our share but we account for literally 1% of the worlds emissions, even if we went to zero it wouldnt change shit except to kill the economy
yeah for real but crippling your own economy while the developing world keeps chugging along will only ensure that youre crippled, its not going to save shit
realistically the only way to fix climate change is to destroy the third world or outright halt their development with force
but thats unpopular so people do stupid bullshit that wont help
The amount of destabilizing would be significant or extintion level.
yeah i live high enough above sea level
as long as it puts the right countries underwater it might fix itself
141 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-10-09
I’m not denying it doesn’t happen, but to assume all people who wear mascot costumes, or are furries, smoke crack and fuck all day in costume is a massive fallacy.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Never_Gonna_Let 2018-10-09
I love seeing snapshill bot quote the folks I talked to.
1 Matues49 2018-10-09
Why are these people the way they are
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
Numbers don't real
1 JumbledFun 2018-10-09
what's hilarious is they always sarcastically cry "feels before reals" without a hint of self awareness
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-10-09
"libruls deny science" is another one
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-09
LIBRULZZ ARE DA REAL
RACISTSSCIENCE DENIERSTWO SCOOPS TWO GENDERS TWO TERMS!!! MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-09
how do you feel about gender
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-10-09
Personally? It's kind of a rubbish word, that doesn't even exist where I'm from (though they're they're trying to make it a thing - thank you USA). How you feel about what sex you are changes nothing. Of course it's on a spectrum if people know they have a choice; everything is. But they're still just a dude or a lady, sometimes born in the wrong body.
By the way, this obsession with 'identities' of all sorts of my fellow leftoids annoys me to no end. We're all human, and the planet we're living on is rapidly going to shit. We need to get our shit together and build more nuclear power plants now.
As for you, some mild ones (nothing about Jews and history)
how do you feel about global warming
how do you feel about evolution
how do you feel about the autism - vaccines correlation
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-09
global warming is real but we cant stop it without destroying the third world because fucked if im going to reduce my quality of life for the benefit of somewhere like india
evolution is a real thing but people acting smug about it dont actually know anything about it because its incredibly complicated
and vaccines work and are real medicine but they can also fuck you up, theyre not a universal good
with all medicine you need to gauge whether the benefits outweigh the risk, and of course theres a risk of negative reactions
autism though i doubt it
1 satanismyhomeboy 2018-10-09
Look at us, agreeing about stuff
/r/drama really is a subreddit of peace
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Not the person you asked or a liberal, but I think that the social construct we call "gender" has no intrinsic meaning and thus you're free to identify as any gender, just don't expect me to respect it.
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-09
But this is different, I don't WANT it to be real. This isn't like gender identity or some shit noone cares about. This is my bottom line ffs.
1 pepperouchau 2018-10-09
A GAY TRANSGENDER NUMBER!!!
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-09
97 percent is just a number. like check this out: 40234. My number is bigger, therefore I win. God liberals seriously need to work on their logic.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-09
Because anti-intellectualism has been ingrained in American culture since pretty much the start.
There's always been a deep distrust of anything "official" be it the government, the media, science, education, etc etc. This isn't such a big problem as long as it's not exploited for political gain.
Well, the GOP, many years ago, faced with a demographics death spiral decided that rather than change their platform or appeal to the majority of the country, they'd just double down on the least intelligent and least aware American citizens.
This is the root of the extreme anti-intellectualism you see within the republican party, the GOP has created a siege mentality within a small, minority base, that due to their geographical spread have more power than the majority.
The conservative siege mentality applies to everything.
Science is rigged against them.
School is rigged against them.
The media is rigged against them.
The UN is rigged against them.
Math is rigged against them.
Reality is rigged against them.
It isn't that they're just wrong, it's that the entire world is conspiring to make them look bad.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Or just when the same people who've lied to you a million times before say something, you instinctually don't trust them.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-09
When were you lied to?
1 djlewt 2018-10-09
A republican opened their mouth.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Do I need to compile a list of everything the "conventional wisdom", "public policy thinktanks", universities, scientific community etc have been wrong about?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-09
Do I need to go into detail as to why "but science was wrong before" is a fallacy only stupid people think applies?
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
I can see you were just waiting to trot that out. Unfortunately, not what I said.
I said lied. If someone is wrong, that is one thing. If they lie, that's another.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-09
And I'll repeat this again, when exactly were you lied to, and by lied to I don't mean "a mistake was made and then corrected."
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
It's not that they all coincidentally unanimously decide to lie. It's that they all draw their water from the same small source, and whatever they draw, they repeat.
Yes 97 percent of scientists agree, but only a fraction of them have any access to the actual models. The rest just say "yes, if all this information is correct as presented, then I agree". However the models are bunk, they had to be retrofitted to obtain the information they wanted because they didn't give them what they wanted, and it's absolutely conceivable that the small number of scientists actually in charge of this particular issue are explicitly looking for what they are told to look for and not looking too hard for contradicting information.
Remember the hockey stick. All righthinking people were in complete agreement that the hockey stick was sacred and complete truth. Then an independent scientist demonstrates that oops, it's not accurate at all, so they all quietly drop it and pretend it never existed.
This is how pretty much everything works nowadays. Government dollars have entered every domain, the government wants particular things, if you deliver them the money keeps coming, if you say otherwise you are shunned and suddenly outside the lucrative bubble.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-10-09
So now we've gone from "they lied" to "well they didn't lie, but here let me make up some other bullshit in an effort to spin out of the fact I was just called on my bullshit."
Few things.
A) No, the models are not "bunk" you got that from standard climate denier sources, they constantly claim the models are "bunk" which has no basis in reality. It's a lie.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
B) No, that's not how a scientific consensus works and again, I have no idea where it is you got this information from. The consensus is obtained by looking at the results of academic research and looking at the conclusions. So when you see people say the consensus is clear, that isn't them saying they asked a bunch of people and had those people give their best guess, they asked publishing climate scientists what the research says.
So far you've revealed you have no idea what you're talking about on even a base level. You're just repeating things you've heard on louder with crowder or via other highly misinformed sources of information, likely American republican propaganda.
one more time, just so we're clear here.
This is not the US government saying anything. It is the entire planet, it is every scientific org in every relevant country across every side of the political spectrum.
Literally the only people on the planet, the only mainstream political party on earth denying climate change is the republican party. So, given you've already revealed the fact you're low-information, let's ask a question.
what is more likely here? The entire planet, every political party and every scientific org on the planet earth is involved in a conspiracy to make you and your tribe look bad, or you're just wrong ?
1 LongPostBot 2018-10-09
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Your post is standard boilerplate not I'm interested in addressing, but lets just focus on this part:
Yet how many people would actually know even the tiniest bit about the issue? Like I said before, we are literally all relying on the very, very tiny number of scientists who have access to the actual models. Yes? We can agree on that part?
A very tiny number of scientists, who do their work behind closed doors, do not let people see their methods, and are on government payroll.
It makes NO DIFFERENCE how many people or countries "believe" them. They don't have any more information than anyone else. This is an appeal to consensus fallacy. Debate the argument, not how many people believe it.
1 froibo 2018-10-09
Pizzashill?
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-10-09
Found PizzaShill's alt.
1 JayBaumanManhole 2018-10-09
I missed you pizza.
1 wewladin 2018-10-09
THE THREE PERCENT ARE OUR GREATEST ALLIES!!! 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-09
I once had a coworker tell me the 97% was made up, and even if it wasn't, only 100% is an actual consensus.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Why can't laymen just accept that the experts know more than they do?
It's known that temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates and that greenhouse gas emissions have such an effect.
Most predictions based on GHG emissions have accurately predicted climate change, although the minority of sensationalist predictions reported by the press didn't.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
talk to any pro climate-change person and they will say tax incentives aren't enough. usa has high carbon per capita because our daily life quality is better than other countries and we have a lot of people. asia has higher carbon emissions but lower per capita because their quality of life as a whole is shitty. there's literally no solution besides usa economy suffering while china's keeps improving and then becoming the leader.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Paris Accords are meant to be a means by which further treaties can be enacted, not the end goal. Also, China has carbon tax.
Tax incentives do incentivise companies to cut down on net carbon emissions, even if they don't incentivise consumers to do so. This has been seen by different countries which implemented carbon taxes.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
the carbon emissions from tax incentives wouldn't be enough is what i said. for what these "scientists" project we would literally need to like destroy our economy. they keep hyping it up which is creating more doubt.
it returns back to the point of we could destroy our economy, but china will keep growing and their emissions go up per capita while their quality of life improves. china becoming the leading economy is not good for obvious reasons. say what you want about usa, but china is worse.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Do you not think climate scientists are actual scientists?
Not really; renewable is cheap nowadays.
Random "science educators" and shit do; normal climate scientists avod hyperbole and sensationalism.
Not really; most respected cliamte science papers made correct predictions regarding the current situation. Highly publicised pop-science claims didn't, but that's not really climate science.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
china is doing carbon taxes but it's not enough for when their quality of life keeps improving, then it goes up.
i'm not denying they're real scientists. what i do suggest is someone has to fund research and where that funding comes puts their projection algorithms in question. there's already major fields in the sciences that have the replication crisis too. that doesn't touch upon algorithms but it's the same deal. again, not denying climate change is real, but when they say "we must do yada yada", that's when i put doubt. if you say those aren't "real climate scientists" well, okay then.
1 Matues49 2018-10-09
Yeah but that's because you're a subhuman illiterate inbred, not because you have a valid objection.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
name calling is uncalled for and i expect some kind of apology. also i reported you tot he mods. sorry, not sorry.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
But their projections have historically mostly turned out right.
Mostly soft sciences, like sociology.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
im not saying we shouldn't reduce carbon emissions, if that leads to cleaner air, great. usa is on a path to reducing our emissions already, a lot of being free market changes already, but there's a lot of voices saying we need to do drastic changes. that puts up red flags for me. doing drastic changes means tanking the economy and handicaps the usa for china to then becoming the leading economy.
in terms of making climate change not a threat, i don't see any possibility besides new technology though. i see the only way of that happening is from we're actually all going to die from global warming or someone finds a way to get money from reducing the emissions.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
I don't think we really disagree much here.
What do you define as drastic changes?
Planting more trees, sourcing more energy from soruces which don't cause GHG pollution, like nuclear or renewables.
No serious climate scientist thinks we will; it will, however, reduce quality of life and cause much suffering.
That is literally what a carbon tax on businesses is.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
drastic changes meaning, stop all use of coal or any "unclean" energy. even though those are most cost efficient right now still (i believe).
carbon taxes aren't incentive enough for actual new technology, just readapting previous technology. i would imagine for actual serious change for carbon emissions we would need to introduce new technology or make the current ways with clean energy incredibly cheaper.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Yeah, I don't agree with such statements. I don't think most people advocate that, though; to my knowledge the emphasis is on steady but gradually shifts towards renewables, not sudden changes.
You're right that fossil fuels are currently cheapest, although that's changing.
That's true; carbon taxes incentivise for reduction in GHG production using existing technology, not production of new technology.
Lots of other stuff can also help, for example gradually phasing out fossil fuels in favour of clean energy, or planting trees.
Clean energy prices are decreasing, especially regarding renewables. This is actually one of the things driving clean energy adoption right now; it's more cost effective.
For example, my native Pakistan favours hydroelectric energy, mainly because we have lots of rivers and don't have to import fossil fuels that way.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
You know what's really going to rustle the world economy's jimmies? When food and water security become an issue potentially to the point of conflict between states and nations, and when coastal areas become inundated to the point of causing large scale human migration to less affected or more habitable areas. When large parts of florida, the gulf, the eastern seaboard become chronically inundated to the point they basically have to be abandoned and ports have to be rebuilt.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
That's medical and social sciences, not natural sciences like geology, metereology, geochemistry, climatology. The best part about a lot of those sciences is the source data is usually widely available from governmental remote sensing, survey, and direct reading stations. The only thing done to it is processing via methods, software, and mathematics/statistics. It is easily replicable if one has the education to do so. Many medical studies have a problem because the data is often collected during a particular study using different methods, sometimes public sometimes by private pharm companies; these studies are often VERY expensive just in the data collection alone to either do initially or replicate.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
what about the algorithms for any of these projections? that's where i still have the doubt in. for how they're coming to these conclusions is it out in the open for someone to try and replicate? i'm sincerely asking and not trying to argue.
me bringing up replication crisis and where funding comes from was to show that science isn't infallible and numbers can be pushed around to prove whatever you want.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
Yes, in the published literature and IPCC reports. However, many aren't just simple programs or equations the layperson can fundamentally understand and manipulate intelligently, so, be warned. Some models require a lot of compute power, so some are not really able to be done efficiently on a normal desktop/laptop at a high resolution, but the underlying math is always there.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Any serious scientific study has to provide the necessary information regarding its methodology for other scientists replicate it, so yes. However, as a layman you may be unable to replicate it, ro udnerstand how to replicate it, yourself.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-10-09
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Well you can check how the old model predictions look compared to observed data. The models have been pretty accurate so far, even models made in the 80s hold up pretty well.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
This is assuming, of course, you trust how the source data is measured, which you probably should. For example, research teams measure historical carbon dioxide elvels very accurately through examination of ice sheet cores.
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-09
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_publishing_stings
1 OniTan 2018-10-09
/r/conspiratard
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
arent you the serial killer i keep hearing about?
1 OniTan 2018-10-09
/r/conspiratard
1 bigberthaboy 2018-10-09
Lol yah
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-10-09
Anyone is a scientist when compared to a r/drama poster lmao
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-09
I posted a FB photo of me in a lab coat and now everyone thinks I'm a "scientists" too.
Americans are so gullible.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-10-09
Hmm, if there was only a way to incentivize technology, perhaps by subsidizing research or fining firms for pollution.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
fines and shit do not lead to new technology. it leads to businesses finding loopholes or whatever. look at anything oil related and how technology grows there.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Depends on how well-written the climate taxes/laws are.
Fines and taxes don't lead to new technology, but they do lead to businesses finding it more profitable to reduce net emissions.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-10-09
How do you think technology gets made? It falls from the sky?
1 Heavy_handed 2018-10-09
NPR had a study recently that increasing public funding for certain technology fields showed no effect on the pace of technological innovation/new discoveries in those fields
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-10-09
that's actually really interesting. do you have a link?
also, do you know if the study measured how well the "stick" (i.e. taxing the problem) works?
1 Heavy_handed 2018-10-09
I can't find anything on Google or duckduckgo about it right now, but it was 3 or 4 months ago that they were discussing it. I don't recall them mentioning studying the effect that taxes had at all
1 shitpost953 2018-10-09
>certain technological fields
1 siempreloco31 2018-10-09
A dude literally just won the Nobel Prize in economics by explaining the opposite.
1 Heavy_handed 2018-10-09
I guess they may have been wrong then, but I find this interesting:
So is that what the data points towards or his interpretation? I'm finding it hard to find the paper itself, just articles about it and the "Endogenous Growth Theory"
And not to pretend to be smarter than a PhD but the wiki page Endogenous Growth Theory states "For example, subsidies for research and development or education increase the growth rate in some endogenous growth models by increasing the incentive for innovation." meanwhile Paul Krugman another Economics Nobel Prize winner criticizes this theory: Paul Krugman criticized endogenous growth theory as nearly impossible to check by empirical evidence; “too much of it involved making assumptions about how unmeasurable things affected other unmeasurable things.”
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-09
Dude
1 Heavy_handed 2018-10-09
I guess they may have been wrong, but I find this interesting:
So is that what the data points towards or his suggestion? I can't find the actual paper Romer wrote and I don't exactly trust a journalist make an unbiased interpretation of a PhD's data
1 Sir_Green_Britches 2018-10-09
But subsidizing new research does.
1 coldfirerules 2018-10-09
Oh god, keep yourself safe.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-10-09
Lmao might as well wait until climate change destroys both our economy and our planet then!
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
the men are talking hun
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
We're due for a new bottleneck event anyway
I'll see you in the bunker
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-09
the only way to combat climate change is to force developing countries to stop developing
1 djlewt 2018-10-09
puts "scientists" in quotes
Says "we would need to like destroy our economy"
Nah you don't sound like your typical retarded right winger /r/conservative poster at all..
Well we've got your opinion on this, and we've got literally millions of right wingers saying outright that it's a hoax done by the Globalists and/or Clintons, so we're going to have to go ahead and not listen to you, because saying "if we do anything then CHINA" is basically just a Trumpian level bullshit excuse with no basis in anything.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
you unironically post on whitepeopletwitter and blackpeopletwitter. we'll let you know if we need an opinion from someone with single digit t-levels.
1 quakquakquak 2018-10-09
lmaooooo there's no money in green tech and industry
1 Liamdev 2018-10-09
Talk to any economist and they will laugh at you for making such stupid claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
Just as you should rely on climate sciences for understanding the climate one should rely on economists to understand how to tackle economic issues.
Carbon taxes wouldn't harm the US economy. Its pretty funny that you think the inevitable China having a larger economy then the US is anything meaningful though.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
why do you think carbon taxes, which place emphasis on using something like solar energy (which is less cost efficient), wouldn't hurt the economy? if it was beneficial for the economy wouldn't all the smaller countries applying more clean energy opposed to fossil fuels be doing better than they are now?
i think most economists are full of shit too, and most of the time they're wrong.
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
The thing is
Doesn't take into account the externalized cost of the use of fossil fuel resources. It only considers the cost at extraction/point of use, which is low. It does not take into account the very real costs that are incurred by pollution (during/after extraction), and GHG accumulation/climate change effects. Economies and societies at large bear those costs instead of the cost being included up front in each ton of coal or gallon of gas. When you consider those costs as intrinsic to use of fossils fuels, alternative energy sources only look better than they already do.
Solar also emits pollution during extraction of the minerals and production of the panels, but not really while in use generating electricity, and those processes can be made cleaner or alternative materials may be developed for PV cells etc.
1 demoloition 2018-10-09
let's say it is more cost efficient and you're right. wouldn't the economies of everyone using more solar energy (or close to) be doing better right now? also, why would china be using more coal now where they don't have to deal with things politically like us if it was more cost efficient?
1 duckraul2 2018-10-09
I think you did not understand what I was trying to communicate. Fossil fuels are cheaper in many large markets, at the point of sale, as long as the costs of the consequences of climate change and air pollution are EXTERNALIZED from the cost of the fuel itself. That's how economics values things in the short term, which is usually more than in the long term. My point is that fossil fuels are not as cost efficient as their nominal price per unit market value indicates. For an equal comparison to be made you have to include that in, but that's somewhat difficult and nuanced, and relies on future projections, or can only be empirically known once in the rear-veiw mirror, which is problematic to price things in the present.
These costs are also delayed somewhat, as some of these systems take a while to respond to input, and have different 'tipping points' and interactions with other systems.It's also hard to put a cost on the climate changing in parts of the world, seasons becoming longer/shorter, etc. Like there are a lot more 95-100+ days each year during the summer where I grew up than there was back then; there seems to be far shorter seasons for snowsports, and the quality during those seasons is reduced; droughts have weakened large swaths of conifer forests in the american west (with the help of pine beetles), many look quite devastated and ugly. How do you value that? It sucks, but how can you place value on human enjoyment etc?
1 Ramboxious 2018-10-09
What's your definition of doing better? Economically? In terms of pollution? What are you comparing?
1 Liamdev 2018-10-09
Carbon taxes dont pick winners, they just ensure the cost of energy production reflect the true cost of producing energy.
Carbon taxes could be revenue neutral pretty easily.
Do you have evidence they are not?
How can you claim economists are fully of shit and then attempt to make a (stupid) economics based argument in the same sentence? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child to be this stupid?
So people who spend their entire lives researching economics are full of shit but you are not? You are a real special snowflake cuck.
Then you are fucking stupid. China has a population almost 6 times larger than the US.
Which has what to do with the economy?
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-09
It means ur grandkids will be making iphones for rich chinkies dumbass
1 Liamdev 2018-10-09
Im not stupid enough to cuck myself by having kids.
1 TotesMessenger 2018-10-09
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-10-09
REEEEE SERIOUSPOSTERS OUTTT
1 NAGOLACOLA 2018-10-09
The main proposals that they want would be to have a 50$/gallon carbon tax and to effectively remove US companies profit margins so that the money can be sent to India and China.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Nice strawman, m8.
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-09
Every scientist who has corroborated the warming effects of CO2 has been paid off by anti-capitalists. Every temperature measurement station gets a wad of cash under the door to "calibrate" the temperature hotter every year. You would know this if you weren't an ignorant libtard.
1 ffbtaw 2018-10-09
I unironically believe that academia has become less trusted due to perceived bias against conservatives in the soft sciences/(gender, ethnic etc) studies and as a result distrust has spread to the hard sciences.
This is obviously massively exacerbated by Republican politicians who deny the existence of global warming but I fear the Academy isn't doing itself any favors. Why do people have to be so fucking dumb?
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Let's see, the experts were wrong about fats, leading to the deaths of millions, socialism, leading to the deaths of millions, macroeconomics leading to financial collapse,
And then don't even begin to know how to accurately model something so giant and complex as the climate. Even in there they have a long bad track record - the hockey stick, the historic relationship between CO2 and temperature, average annual variance, temperature rises, ice levels, etc.
They don't have a clue what they're talking about and almost no one really believes in it any more.
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
If you cant be sure of the claim (which is actually retarded but not the point) consider potential outcomes.
If science/the world is right and we:
If they are wrong or off and we
The people trying to stop environmental development are protecting their monetary interests and nothing else. It benefits no one but oil companies etc to wait
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
No, if the predictions are correct then the temperature increases by 2 degrees over the next century, which is probably a good thing.
Or we could spend 500 trillion dollars fighting this.
You have the right idea evaluating risk/ reward, just have the consequences all wrong.
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-09
Half the planet is currently uninhabited because its basically too friggin cold to survive there.
The hottest places on earth also happen to be the most populous, by far.
1 Lupusvorax 2018-10-09
How soon before you covert to some form of religion then?
Because if there is no God, you've lost nothing.
But if there is a God...... Well you can figure it out
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
I am muslim
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
😂😂😂
1 Lupusvorax 2018-10-09
I see the point burnt a skid mark on your scalp as it flew over your head.
Try again.
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
Oh you had a point? Huh weird
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
Oh you had a point? Huh weird
1 Lupusvorax 2018-10-09
Was that a conclusion, or the place where your brain took a dump?
1 Matues49 2018-10-09
Just stop. You're coming across as mongier and mongier with each response.
1 Lupusvorax 2018-10-09
Sez who? You? Little miss 'I have to have the last word', Not bloody likely.
By the way, you're going to have to work on your insults, my toaster comes up with better burns than you do.
Now, go back to your corner and continue chewing on your toenails
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
And no it's not more and more "deep shit" that is supposed to happen each year, it's a feedback loop that continues being under increasing pressure and eventually will break. The problem it's nearly impossible to communicate that sort of uncertainty and complexity to the lay public, particularly one with such poor scientific education.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
They really don't, though; most predictions by well-respected academic papers have come true.
Your fualt then for thinking random clickbait sites and sensationalist "science educators" are synonymous with actual climate scientists.
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Like the hockey stick?
Like us being underwater by now?
Like the arctic ice cap growing incredibly fast?
Climate is impossible to predict and most of their predictions have been wrong, some things they have unanimously agreed to be 100% true ended up wrong.
Climate being what it is, sometimes it's warmer, sometimes less ice, but sometimes the opposite. Any general trend is pretty hard to discern, and certainly not what they've been saying.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
hmm.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2018-10-09
Climate Change is really the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a few basic facts:
The atmosphere is heated by outgoing radiation.
some types of gases including CO2, methane, and water vapor absorb this radiation and reflect it back to earth further heating the planet.
carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have gotten higher in the past 150 years (about 30%h higher.
the massive amounts of coal, oil, and gas being burned for fuel is releasing enough CO2 to account for most the difference.
There I just proved climate change is real (or maybe I just proved I’m a dirty neo-Marxist).
1 HolyWarsPunishment 2018-10-09
Ok now incorporate this into your theory
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png?w=720
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2018-10-09
It's not just a theory, everything I typed was a fact. What I described above (the Greenhouse effect) is the reason why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being about as close to the sun as Earth is, it's reason why the earth is on average 50 degrees rather than 0 degrees, and it's the reason why the planet has been getting warmer.
Either, way why should I trust that graph at all? It doesn't have an x axis for either temperature or CO2 values. I have only found one author who used the figure, and he and most of the people he is affiliated don't have very good credentials at all. It's quite an interesting rabbit hole but I don't have time to go down it now.
If it's too hard to visualize in you head and you need a graph, maybe this one will convince you.
1 literally_a_tractor 2018-10-09
What is that graph supposed to show? The chart starts 450,000 years ago, with anything relevant to humanity (or at least civilization) jammed up in the last 1/10th of the chart, showing that temperatures for the last ~10,000 years have been within the same range (+/-2) and comparable in temp to previous warm periods, with CO2 seeming to correlate to some degree. What am I supposed to see? Is it the red vertical line at the right most side?
Btw, is ppm a measure of relative proportion? And when you say 30% higher you mean from ~290ppm to ~370ppm? Since we are talking parts per million, wouldn't is also be accurate to say that is a <0.01% total increase?
1 aqouta 2018-10-09
You still need to do actual science though, we did so we know you're right, but it could just as easily been found out that our burning of coal was the equivalent of dropping a teaspoon of salt into lake Michigan and worrying about it becoming saltwater.
When we go into this kind of "you don't even have to have proof" thinking we validate the weird jumps of logic and invalid assumptions climate deniers use to "prove" there is no climate change.
1 -Mopsus- 2018-10-09
Ian is such a bizarre person.
1 dogwheiner 2018-10-09
It's kinda amazing seeing someone sell out this hard, but still be such an ugly mewling troll that it doesn't even work. Like Milo's idiot brother
1 HadakaApron 2018-10-09
It was so disappointing to see one prominent anti-Gamergate person realize that maybe his clique wasn't so great after all... and then pull a 180 and become Milo's gunsel.
1 seshfan2 2018-10-09
I think a lot of these retards were hardcore left / SJW types and - because they're retarded - the moment they find something wrong or idiotic about SJWs, they immediately flip to the opposite spectrum of idiocy. SMH when people haven't accepted the doctrine of radical centrism.
1 Gtyyler 2018-10-09
At first I thought this was Jordan lobsterson, but surmise my surprise when the guy from HeatStreet appears.
Everyone knows climate change is what is going to kill us. People will not stop polluting naturally. The only solution is to hope that when humanity starts feeling the effects and billions are dead, what is left of humanity starts getting its act together.
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
Billions won't die, but many will suffer and quality of life will go down.
Incentives liek carbon taxes do reduce net GHG emissions by businesses.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-10-09
Billions could very well die over the years as a result of political instability wrought by climate change.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-10-09
1 100_Percent_not_homo 2018-10-09
Imagine thinking global warming would end human life on earth lmao
1 DougieFFC 2018-10-09
There's a certain level of comfort where wealthy people start giving a shit about being environmentally conscious and are willing to pay for it. So the solution is more capitalism not less capitalism. Like everything else.
1 EWDnutz 2018-10-09
Ian Miles ChingChong?
How bad is that name?
1 Ritthy 2018-10-09
W. E W
1 pisserpatterwater 2018-10-09
1 seshfan2 2018-10-09
I didn't read any of the seriousposts in this thread but: lol
1 LadyVetinari 2018-10-09
/u/comedicsans they're baaaaaccckkk 😂😂😂
1 ComedicSans 2018-10-09
Lol.
1 Tobans 2018-10-09
Never left
1 NAGOLACOLA 2018-10-09
You know that it’s good cause the first comment you see is from Count Dankula.
1 PlumCorruptor 2018-10-09
What’s up with dankula?
1 ConfuseTheJews 2018-10-09
this guy knows something
something fucking crazy
1 djlewt 2018-10-09
The best is his comments down the chain where he calls climate change fake alarmism and points to a news story about how global warming is going to cause entire nations to be underwater.
Like dude you can literally google it to find out which nations actually are going to be underwater.
This is how stupid you have to be in order to be a right winger at this point.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-09
climate change is real but jumping to dumb conclusions like al gore is dumb
the western world largely cant do shit to combat it unless china and india pull their fingers out and actually do something
also the powers that be see it more as a tool of controlling people rather than being pro environment
here in australia fags always complain that we arent doing our share but we account for literally 1% of the worlds emissions, even if we went to zero it wouldnt change shit except to kill the economy
1 PizzaHoe696969 2018-10-09
once temperture hits 4 degrees the methane sinks will thaw. This will make it literallt tens worth a melf all ice year round.
The amount of destabilizing would be significant or extintion level.
And once everyone dies there will be no drama. Bad for drama.
1 captainpriapism 2018-10-09
yeah for real but crippling your own economy while the developing world keeps chugging along will only ensure that youre crippled, its not going to save shit
realistically the only way to fix climate change is to destroy the third world or outright halt their development with force
but thats unpopular so people do stupid bullshit that wont help
yeah i live high enough above sea level
as long as it puts the right countries underwater it might fix itself