User Controls
The World is Transitioning to a "Hothouse" state
-
2018-08-08 at 3:06 AM UTCSo we are in agreement then..
-
2018-08-08 at 5:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Try telling a hippy environmentalist that their backpacking trip to Asia is cancelled because planes consume around a gallon a second of fuel, and see how you get on.
and not to mention causing unnecessary, undued, and unwarranted cloud formation that ended up lashing uncalled storm in the 3rd and also the 1st world countries. -
2018-08-08 at 5:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by A College Professor Okay so it's getting warmer and the Polar Bear will go extinct, that sucks
no they will not. some of them might die, but the rest will evolve, change color and turn into something resembling asiatic jungle bears.I give us a big pat on the back. Homes are being built tighter and much better insulated. Furnaces, water heaters, boilers, air-conditioners, refrigerators, and just electric motors in general have seen incredible increases in efficiency.
no, the simple fact that youre warming your house from its natural temperature is prove enough that your contributing to the warming of the planet.
the biggest contributor of warmth on the planet isnt CO2 emission as ''scientists'' had suggested,
its the act of heating your houses and offices and malls and etc etc.
does anyone has any data on how many BTUs people in the 1st world are shoving into the atmosphere each day to make their cold libensraum more comfortable ????
of cos ''scientists'' wont tell you any of this becos frankly speaking ... who really wants to really change their way of life ??? -
2018-08-08 at 6:02 AM UTCI think it's pretty cool too. People my age freak out about global warming and will go into conniptions if you imply you don't care/it's okay. I just like to remind them that the Earth has been so warm in the past that the poles were covered in tropical rain forests. It doesn't matter if the temperature goes up a few degrees. It's been hotter. At worst, it's the speed of climate change that's most problematic because species can't keep up with the rate of change. It's an artificially severe evolutionary pressure that evolution isn't keeping pace with. It's an extinction event, sure. Humans will be fine though. Life will keep on going. Just not all life.
It baffles me how the same snake person dipshits who think we can colonize Mars (notoriously inhospitable) don't think we as a species will survive making our perfectly hospitable planet slightly less so.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-08-08 at 8:41 AM UTC
-
2018-08-08 at 12:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bologna Nacho Exactly right, oil is a gift from God. It is what fuels the economy of the WORLD! It has made life better for the entire planet! For some shmuck (Al Gore) to come along and say we need to get off oil is to deny the world of this gift. And I shudder to think what would happen if we didn't remove the oil from the earth…Oil volcanic explosions perhaps?
You are a world class fool. It's not even humorous. -
2018-08-08 at 12:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by larrylegend8383 You are a world class fool. It's not even humorous.
I usually just assume he's trolling
on 'global warming' I've had this discussion with people I thought were fairly level-headed - the oldest climate data available is only around 20,000 years old from memory, and when I asked how it's possible to make accurate models on climate change over billions of years with such a small set of data they more or less called me a heretic
I actually believe that heavy industry has a significant long-term effect on the environment and that it's in everyone's best interests to step down emissions and waste, but the insane dogma on both sides of the argument (it's really not a debate) is ridiculousThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-08-08 at 2:31 PM UTC
-
2018-08-08 at 2:34 PM UTCOP is transitioning into a "Paris bathouse" state
-
2018-08-08 at 3:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by larrylegend8383 You are a world class fool. It's not even humorous.
i dunno, it is totally feasible that it was natures plan all along was to create a species smart enough to dig up and burn fossil fuels so as to prevent too much oil and coal building up under the earths surface. i mean could you imagine if it was just left and continued building up just how inhospitable the world would eventually become? i mean look how much was under there already and there is even more life on earth now than there was millions of years ago. nature has proven many times to have some very clever ways of recycling itself naturally, i wouldn't be completely surprised if that actually turned out to be the case. in fact, just the very fact that that has happened would indicate that could very likely have been the case.
. -
2018-08-08 at 3:18 PM UTCSo you're saying Mother Earth is a suicidal whore?
-
2018-08-08 at 3:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by A College Professor That's rich coming from you. you're all gall, and no ball. Now watch me whip whip now watch me nay nay
how is it rich coming from me? i've never even hinted at the opposite, so you can't seriously accuse me of being a hypocrite on this matter. and that's what is meant when you say 'that's rich coming from you'.
. <--have another faggot mark, i know you like them. -
2018-08-08 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra the oldest climate data available is only around 20,000 years old from memory, and when I asked how it's possible to make accurate models on climate change over billions of years with such a small set of data they more or less called me a heretic
Fossil records and geology and stuff give us something of a picture of the very distant past. Combining continental drift data with fossil data and the type of rocks that formed at given times can give us a decent picture of what the climate was like. That kind of thing. You know?
I wouldn't say this necessarily gives enough data to accurately model climate change over billions of years by any stretch, but it does give us windows somewhat into what the climate was like. It's not like climate data is limited to ice core sampling, which probably only stretches back 20000 years like you said. -
2018-08-08 at 3:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Fossil records and geology and stuff give us something of a picture of the very distant past. Combining continental drift data with fossil data and the type of rocks that formed at given times can give us a decent picture of what the climate was like. That kind of thing. You know?
I wouldn't say this necessarily gives enough data to accurately model climate change over billions of years by any stretch, but it does give us windows somewhat into what the climate was like. It's not like climate data is limited to ice core sampling, which probably only stretches back 20000 years like you said.
what you have to realize is that in the 80s margaret thatcher didn't trust the middle east so didn't see oil as a good potential energy supply and with the coal miners strike and most of the pits closing down she didn't trust coal either. so she paid a bunch of scientists to find ways to sell nuclear energy to the public, which with the cold war going on wasn't as easy as it might sound. scientists will prove anything if you pay them to and global warming was one of the things they came up with. but what you have to consider is the climate models that all this data comes from is just a computer program that will only give you an answer based on what data you feed into it in the first place. not only did they very likely only feed in data that would give them the desired result at the time, you also have to realize that with weather there are so many variables that affect it that it is impossible to feed them all in correctly to get the real result. especially as there are potentially many variables that affect it that man doesn't even know about yet.
tl;dr: climate models are just bullshit.
. -
2018-08-08 at 3:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist what you have to realize is that in the 80s margaret thatcher didn't trust the middle east so didn't see oil as a good potential energy supply and with the coal miners strike and most of the pits closing down she didn't trust coal either. so she paid a bunch of scientists to find ways to sell nuclear energy to the public, which with the cold war going on wasn't as easy as it might sound. scientists will prove anything if you pay them to and global warming was one of the things they came up with. but what you have to consider is the climate models that all this data comes from is just a computer program that will only give you an answer based on what data you feed into it in the first place. not only did they very likely only feed in data that would give them the desired result at the time, you also have to realize that with weather there are so many variables that affect it that it is impossible to feed them all in correctly to get the real result. especially as there are potentially many variables that affect it that man doesn't even know about yet.
tl;dr: climate models are just bullshit.
.
Wasn't England an oil and gas exporter back then, due to the North Sea reserves? -
2018-08-08 at 4:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra that it's in everyone's best interests to step down emissions and waste, but the insane dogma on both sides of the argument (it's really not a debate) is ridiculous
this is where i disagree.
saying that everyone should just decrease their CO2 output is unfair to the 3rd world countries its borderline nep-colonialism.
developed countries developed using cheap carbon-based energy and released an abundance of pollutants ....
and now after having developed with cheap energy and emitted a humongous amount of pollutants, their now trying to make energies and carbonizing them insanely expensive so that developing countries will have to expend more money, ie; labor to develop their countries and slowing down their developments.
this whole ''climate change'' is a conspiracy to keep developing countries from being developed so that they may forever remain the sweatshop of the west. -
2018-08-08 at 4:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Fossil records and geology and stuff give us something of a picture of the very distant past. Combining continental drift data with fossil data and the type of rocks that formed at given times can give us a decent picture of what the climate was like. That kind of thing. You know?
at best they are just educated speculations.
hypothesises.
and only time will tell when theyll admit that they are wrong.
just google the term ''scientists were wrong'' and surprise yourself. -
2018-08-08 at 4:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader this is where i disagree.
saying that everyone should just decrease their CO2 output is unfair to the 3rd world countries its borderline nep-colonialism.
developed countries developed using cheap carbon-based energy and released an abundance of pollutants ….
and now after having developed with cheap energy and emitted a humongous amount of pollutants, their now trying to make energies and carbonizing them insanely expensive so that developing countries will have to expend more money, ie; labor to develop their countries and slowing down their developments.
this whole ''climate change'' is a conspiracy to keep developing countries from being developed so that they may forever remain the sweatshop of the west.
i'd agree with that an all.
. -
2018-08-08 at 4:26 PM UTCWe don't really give a damn about the wellbeing of third world countries.
If they have resources we want we send in the economic hitman, get them in debt to the world bank, and make them worse off than they were before.
Except for the top one percent in that country. They do really well. -
2018-08-08 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Fossil records and geology and stuff give us something of a picture of the very distant past. Combining continental drift data with fossil data and the type of rocks that formed at given times can give us a decent picture of what the climate was like. That kind of thing. You know?
I wouldn't say this necessarily gives enough data to accurately model climate change over billions of years by any stretch, but it does give us windows somewhat into what the climate was like. It's not like climate data is limited to ice core sampling, which probably only stretches back 20000 years like you said.
that...as well as ice core samples, atmospheric gases/biological remnants/etc trapped in various biological and geological formations, etc.
