4 Guests viewing this page
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

@SleepingSilence By 'biased' links, I meant about all of them were Trump or Conservative reported sites. I'd like some data that has no bias. And while you might not think Trump or Conservatives are guilty of any Russian conspiracy, I would think you would agree that they are very biased on their own agendas and lie often. Not that liberals are much better, and Bill Nye, while he hasn't ever changed his science (from what I can tell), he does now remain silent on certain issues like gender chromosomes so as not to upset some of the far radicals of the LGBT community, so he isn't a saint I concede.

Look, Marc Morano has a bachelor's degree in political science, with no degree in any scientific field. His wiki page. And not only did you post a video of him arguing against an actual scientists, but you also used the website this non scientist uses to prove facts that he cannot prove. Marc is a political tool for Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives.

Look, the united states has been a left vs right field for a very long time, but it has increased its polarization in the past few years. Let me give you an example.

You don't find states more conservative than Alabama. My highschool science teacher often said "America is the greatest country on the planet," as most good americans would claim. Yet to him CO2 emissions causing the rapid growth of climate change was no more debated than the boiling temperature of water. I even remember us watching a clip of the "I am Legend" movie with Will Smith's character driving around in his fast car in the abandoned city, and him using that as an example saying "Now, he can blow off those carbon emissions from his car because he is one of the last people on the planet. The problem is with the population growth and how many people are giving off CO2."

My conservative as hell science teacher in 2008 and 2009 had no doubt that climate change was real, and was rapidly growing hotter due to CO2. And while the country was somewhat polarized then, it was less so than it is now. People choose the facts they want now. I haven't found any climate change denier, scientist or no (and most are not) that aren't conservatives, while I have found plenty of climate change scientists on every spectrum of the political sphere.

To be more specific in your last question however, the CO2 emissions are speeding up the process in a dangerous rate. It is not the only factor, no. But it's the unnatural swiftness of the climate rising. This is why much of the coral reefs are dying the past few years. This is why sea levels are rising much quicker than most have anticipated. Hell, I just found this article about how, due to the sudden change in humidity, a normally harmless bacteria has now killed off two thirds of the world's Saiga, because of climate change. Literally 200,000 animals dropped dead over the course of a few days back in 2015, as the world grows hotter.

Here is a non american link, to show all of the factors that affect climate change. Humans are on there, as well as currents, locations of mountains, etc.

1x Like Like
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Dolerman
Raw
OP
Avatar of Dolerman

Dolerman Chrysalis Form

Member Seen 11 mos ago

Because we are back on climate change, we need @Heat to bring the heat.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by SleepingSilence
Raw
Avatar of SleepingSilence

SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.

Member Online

(Sorry, there's so much stuff. I need to cut it down a bit. Doing my best to respond to all of that, without making it too cluttered.)

By 'biased' links, I meant about all of them were Trump or Conservative reported sites. I'd like some data that has no bias.


That doesn't change my response that calling them bias, doesn't change anything that sources you provided had the same problem. Because their isn't any such thing as unbiased opinion. You cannot have an opinion, without using your own frame of mind.

The important difference is transparency, you see those sites as less biased and more sensible, specifically because they match your own point of view. (Whether you realize that or not.)

I'll make it as clear as possible. I do not care what site or video you use. It -will- have bias. What needs to be discovered, if it actually is factual or not.

And while you might not think Trump or Conservatives are guilty of any Russian conspiracy, I would think you would agree that they are very biased on their own agendas and lie often. Not that liberals are much better.


Well for starters, it's either one or the other. Because Trump isn't a conservative in anyway. I hardly believe he is even right leaning on the political spectrum. But disregard liberals, because I think leftist is a clearer term.

They've clearly already lied many, many times regarding this conspiracy, in a desperate attempt to double down even after many figures were caught on camera admitting to lacking any substantial/real evidence. So the burden of proof absolutely lies with the ones that actually have an ongoing, nonstop rating machine, agenda.

(Regardless of my feelings that both sides both use similar tactics in politics, often because they unfortunately work. But we aren't talking about corrupt politics, unless we want to get into the "Why would you want to give the corrupt government more money and power, since you'd have to think money and power corrupts?")

Bill Nye hasn't ever changed his science (from what I can tell).


This is easily and provably false. (Though the edited episode of gender chromosomes is defended as a "money" issue. Which sure, let's go with that. Still doesn't change the fact that this was an opinion that changed.)

There's articles about him changing his mind about philosophy and science being connected, and about GMO's in food.



washingtonpost.com/news/energy-enviro…

But assuming we are talking about solely his views on climate change, I can bet his opinions have changed with the times, after Al Gore failed his predictions with the global warming movie. Because they both worked together to make a video at one point. But his opinions are extreme and as someone who isn't a real scientist should stop lying and misleading his viewerbase.

mystudentvoices.com/we-need-to-talk-a…

wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-file…

(Seriously, go through all the information on this link above and tell me that looks like something that wasn't constructive at tearing something apart.)

dailywire.com/news/20769/bad-science-…

But Global warming/climate change has been a moving goal post for years now. There is no answer for "What exactly do we need to do, for how long, and will that fix everything?"

instituteforenergyresearch.org/analys…

Look, Marc Morano has a bachelor's degree in political science, with no degree in any scientific field. His wiki page. And not only did you post a video of him arguing against an actual scientists...


...Are you being fully sincere right now? I can honestly no longer tell. Because this point is just...So, so wrong. It's not only an appeal to authority fallacy. Bill Nye ISN'T a climate scientist. He got a degree in mechanical engineering. (and the other guy is a news anchor.)

I haven't found any climate change denier, scientist or no (and most are not) that aren't conservatives, while I have found plenty of climate change scientists on every spectrum of the political sphere.


The personal story anecdote aside, this 97% percent agree thing isn't anywhere near accurate. It's also disingenuous. Yes earth's climate is changing, naturally like it has since it's creation. We had a 15 year pause that goes unexplained by these theories. And there's tons of scientists that disagree, because science isn't done by consensus. This idea that everyone agrees except for political ignorance. Isn't true at all.

pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-vie…

ossfoundation.us/projects/environment…

nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent…

To be more specific in your last question however, the CO2 emissions are speeding up the process in a dangerous rate. It is not the only factor, no. But it's the unnatural swiftness of the climate rising. This is why much of the coral reefs are dying the past few years. This is why sea levels are rising much quicker than most have anticipated. How, due to the sudden change in humidity, a normally harmless bacteria has now killed off two thirds of the world's Saiga. Literally 200,000 animals dropped dead over the course of a few days back in 2015, as the world grows hotter.


Like I said before, literally everything has been blamed on climate change. But even if those things are in fact happening, it may very well be for different and much more complex reasons. I'm not "denying" climate doesn't change, that the earth is warming or even that humans pollute and do things that may effect nature.

My gripe is that's it's somehow all our fault (despite the fact, stuff like Cow farting, actually raises CO2 emissions more than Cars.) and it can easily be fixed. Just by handing power/money to a big government. When stuff like the paris climate accord and other things were admitted to basically do nothing to change the temperature, but still wanted us to foot a huge, costly bill and do it anyway.

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/…

(The source it talks about.)

ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-p…

Stuff on sea levels:

telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/ch…

drroyspencer.com/2017/07/study-sea-le…

forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/1…

Here is a non american link, to show all of the factors that affect climate change. Humans are on there, as well as currents, locations of mountains, etc.




Now assuming the response is, "you gave me more biased links." I feel like I can't do anything more, if the argument continues using circular logic.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 5 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Hell, I just found this article about how, due to the sudden change in humidity, a normally harmless bacteria has now killed off two thirds of the world's Saiga, because of climate change. Literally 200,000 animals dropped dead over the course of a few days back in 2015, as the world grows hotter.


I remember when that happened. BBC was following that herd for one of their Planet Earth series, don't remember which variant (or if it made the cut, I mean, that's sad shit).

It's absolute horseshit to link that to climate change. Genetic diversity in a global population of 600k is very homogenized (am I using that word right? It's an inbred species). They're vulnerable to pathogens and they caught one. Shit happens. To their credit, the real actual scientists who were on the scene said as much at the time. Apparently, now, someone's throwing that whole mass-death onto the altar of climate change, and the people who are pulling that BS are the reason why I'm skeptical of every climate-change headline ever. Because they're lying.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

@SleepingSilence I do believe this will be circular, because you posted something from Breitbart.

First off, science is not opinion. It is tested. Yes, science evolves. But it is based on understanding, trial and error, and controlled experiments. You have to admit that there is something to this climate change thing, when literally the entire fucking world entered the Paris Agreement except Trump. I don't even say 'the U.S.' because many people here are still disagreeing with him. But you need to admit that beyond any opinion or political affiliation, if the entire planet except a certain political party agreed that CO2 emissions are dangerous, there needs to be something to that.

Let's just talk science for a moment. In 2016, September I believe, we reached a CO2 level of 400 parts per million. Usually that is supposed to be the high in the summer. Usually it lowers in autumn to about 380 or 390 PPM (not to mention it was 180 PPM in the Industrial revolution) because the cooling climate with the trees and plants not having wilted yet, absorbs a lot of the carbon dioxide in the air.

In 2016 September, our CO2 did not lower below 400 PPM, which was a milestone that pretty much the entire scientific community thought was concerning, other than conservative platforms.

The last time there was this much carbon in the air, the oceans were 80 feet higher than they are now. Couple that with our deforestation, and it is literally 2+2=4.

P.S. I also was not defending Bill Nye, just like how I am not for Hillary even though I am against Trump. However it would be good to note that while he was a mechanical engineer first and an avid inventor, he did earn a few honorary degrees and was vice president of the planetary society with multiple patents and support from various united states science committees. I would trust him over a bachelor's political science 'website owner' any day.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I remember when that happened. BBC was following that herd for one of their Planet Earth series, don't remember which variant (or if it made the cut, I mean, that's sad shit).

It's absolute horseshit to link that to climate change. Genetic diversity in a global population of 600k is very homogenized (am I using that word right? It's an inbred species). They're vulnerable to pathogens and they caught one. Shit happens. To their credit, the real actual scientists who were on the scene said as much at the time. Apparently, now, someone's throwing that whole mass-death onto the altar of climate change, and the people who are pulling that BS are the reason why I'm skeptical of every climate-change headline ever. Because they're lying.


That is literally not what the article says, and the article does not have a political agenda I do not believe. It was a harmless bacteria that is common to the animal, and the humidity caused the bacteria that is usually in their respiratory tract to get into their bloodstream where it did not belong.

And while I did not get a degree in zoology, I wanted to and was going to if my university had such a degree, but it's been a fancy of mine since I was a wee lad and I can safely say that plenty of species have come back from the brink of a thousand animals and did not have any debilitating inbreeding, such as the American Bison. It only caused some small problems and was mostly a worry. But there are many well known animals on earth that have a population of 10-20,000 and inbreeding is not an immediate threat. 600,000 is quite a large number for a megafauna.

Edit: Though a quick search does show me that the Saiga are noted to not have a lot of genetic diversity due to a population bottleneck in the Pliestocene, which kinda leads me to believe that maybe it is a factor of both.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 5 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

.
2x Like Like
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That is literally not what the article says, and the article does not have a political agenda I do not believe. It was a harmless bacteria that is common to the animal, and the humidity caused the bacteria that is usually in their respiratory tract to get into their bloodstream where it did not belong.

And while I did not get a degree in zoology, I wanted to and was going to if my university had such a degree, but it's been a fancy of mine since I was a wee lad and I can safely say that plenty of species have come back from the brink of a thousand animals and did not have any debilitating inbreeding, such as the American Bison. It only caused some small problems and was mostly a worry. But there are many well known animals on earth that have a population of 10-20,000 and inbreeding is not an immediate threat. 600,000 is quite a large number for a megafauna.

Edit: Though a quick search does show me that the Saiga are noted to not have a lot of genetic diversity due to a population bottleneck in the Pliestocene, which kinda leads me to believe that maybe it is a factor of both.


This is probably a good time to admit that I didn't click your link -- figured it was a safe skip, because I remember that whole Saiga incident vividly. I'm speaking more generally about alarmism from the papers -- that's one of my "triggers" if you will. "Bad thing happened -- LET'S POSTULATE HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS RESPONSIBLE AND THEN PUBLISH AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT! Damn the scientists, we have readers to think about!"

It happens, and I blame the publicists for making me mistrust what could be real important info. More recent example would be the latest hurricane season -- climate science came right out and said "WE NEED MORE DATA, this probably has nothing to do with climate change." Less than 24 hours later, everyone wrote their articles anyway, and there "wasn't a political agenda" it was "science."
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Andreyich
Raw
Avatar of Andreyich

Andreyich AS THOUGH A THOUSAND MOUTHS CRY OUT IN PAIN

Member Seen 0-24 hrs ago

A bit dated, but the UAE is trying to colonize Mars. Good on them for inadvertently going down the terraforming path to achieve it, too.

It'll definitely help them if the oil reserves run out.


Inshallah, we shall have our Mars Ancapistani Caliphate after all!

As an aside, I'm surprised people outside of communities that are too primitive to know the word climate change still deny it. Even if theoretically it was mostly a result of natural cycles these are clearly natural cycles that will not end well for millions of people which we should not be trying to speed up.

Also, I'm stealing this meme


1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Normie
Raw

Normie

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

The climate change issue has been politicized way beyond the point that I would still bother to try and actually discern the truth. I don't think anyone actually knows what is going to happen with the kind of certainty that the left would like to claim. And if the alarmist claims are true then we are fucked anyways. Big daddy gubmint isn't going to be able to stop it.
2x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by SleepingSilence
Raw
Avatar of SleepingSilence

SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.

Member Online

@POOHEAD189 (I did this from my phone.) A bit yeah. I don't like brietbart either but that article was referring to a liberal environmental website study. (from what I can tell.) Hence why I posted the direct link underneath. A broken clock is still right twice a day. The easiest way to become biased and to keep yourself in a bubble is never reading the opposition's work.

Look, I don't think anyone actually likes people polluting and if you think buying green light bulbs will save the planet you should be more than free to be able to buy them. But the government is incompetent and can't run anything effectively I don't think it can change Mother Nature. Europe has been constantly trying to go all green, like Germany using mostly alternative energy and their CO2 emissions skyrocketed.

I'm not opposed to companies trying to compete to provide alternative energy sources that might be considered Greener for the Earth. But to be honest I'm still under the impression that a lot of climate change is natural due to the Earth's changing climate like it has since its creation. USA CO2 levels have dropped exponentially compared to Europe's. And the climate Accord would of flooded the US with most if not all of the bill, it was primarily to hurt the United States which is exactly why Trump correctly got out of the Paris climate Accord. That's just how I see it.

I have no problems with people thinking that we as a society need to try harder when it comes to taking care of our environment, because it is important. And they're certainly things that we could do. But this catastrophe narrative that constantly shifts and moves goalposts and lies consistently and makes a mockery out of Science by proclaiming that it's a consensus and people like Bill Nye wanting to throw people who deny their every thought into prison is steps to far that I'm not willing to accept.

Bill Nye is not a scientist, and the reason that's important is because he constantly uses the appeal to authority fallacy. You telling me that you won't believe or even listen to someone's opinion because they are not a climate scientist. But you'll take Bill Nye word as gospel. Is itself the very idea of bias, double standard. I'm certain that you believe what you were talking about. But I certainly don't think that Al Gore or Bill Nye cares about anything other than money and themselves. I can't post any links because I'm on my phone but you should just look into how exorbitant their lifestyles are, to show the blatant hypocrisy of their words. I sort of find the Doom and Gloom scenario, as Insidious as the religious extremists that proclaim the world will end. Though it's less of a problem because less people take it seriously.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Kratesis
Raw
Avatar of Kratesis

Kratesis Spiritus Mundi

Member Seen 9 mos ago

Currently the human race has only one planet. Earth. It's biosphere must sustain 100% of human life; long term survival outside of the biosphere is not possible. If that biosphere undergoes a shift that does not favor human life than the volume of human life that can be supported will be reduced. Perhaps by as much as 100%.

The cause of shifts in the type of life favored by the biosphere are largely academic. What matters is that our considerable scientific and industrial might be mustered and directed toward conserving a biosphere that is favorable to our species.

I do not use the word conserve by accident. I am a conservative woman and I look around at culture, at society, at economic and fiscal systems and I see many things worth conserving. But I also look at the planet and I see something that must be conserved; oceans must be conserved, forests must be conserved, the ozone layer must be conserved and a certain temperature range within which humans can exist must also be conserved.

Perhaps there will come a day when our survival as a species is no longer dependent on one planets biosphere. But we have not yet arrived at that time. For now control over the environment must be seized and it must be locked into place and held there until the human race has advanced beyond it's dependency on a single biosphere.
4x Like Like
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Normie
Raw

Normie

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

The thing with all the climate regulations that the left would like to implement is that all you do is outsource the pollution overseas. Make it too expensive to produce here and companies will set up shop in China or wherever instead, where there are few or simply no such climate regulations. If it's a matter of potential species extinction as alarmists like to claim then what we really should do is take over the second and third world by force, occupy all such nations under martial law, and put leftist climate standards into place globally. This would be the only way to preserve the atmosphere and hence the species. For some reason I don't see any lefties clamoring for this though.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 5 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Silver Carrot
Raw
Avatar of Silver Carrot

Silver Carrot Wow I've been here a while

Member Seen 25 min ago

Climate change is happening. It's happened before and it'll happen when we're gone.

We do need to stop fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy, but I think a more pressing reason is that one day we'e going to run out of fossil fuels. No more gas. No more plastic (as least not from the current process. Maybe we make it from alcohol and it goes way, waaaay up in price but no more cheap plastic)

Millions of companies who rely on plastic will need to make fundamental changes or go out of business. Hundreds of million of jobs will be lost in an instant.

Unless we start gradually implementing renewable energy asap.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 5 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Silver Carrot
Raw
Avatar of Silver Carrot

Silver Carrot Wow I've been here a while

Member Seen 25 min ago

@catchamber

It's not going to run out entirely but we won't be getting any new stuff from crude oil when there is no crude oil left, and that's where the cheap stuff comes from. The things you talked about are nice little things and will keep the outdated oil industries on life support a few more decades or so (that I will admit I did not know about at all) but they're not even close to helping make a claim of us not NEEDING to switch to renewable urgently.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 5 yrs ago Post by Polymorpheus
Raw

Polymorpheus

Member Seen 4 yrs ago

.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Silver Carrot
Raw
Avatar of Silver Carrot

Silver Carrot Wow I've been here a while

Member Seen 25 min ago

@catchamber

I was more talking about plastic to fuel recyling. Microbial fuel is good but I can't see how it could get widespread adaption and backing where renewable energies of yore have failed. (They're still perfectly viable to this day) It's not so much better and more adaptable than solar or hydro power.

Speaking of solar power, artificial photosynthesis is basically solar power. I'm not even going to treat them like separate energy options.
↑ Top
4 Guests viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet