Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Tropodan, Jul 11, 2019.
Then look who funds them
Oh joy another fucking climate discussion.
We will have the "don't give a fuck's" vs the "don't do fuck all's".
Should be entertaining and I suspect new ground will be made.
Oh man, I was just gonna watch that. Thanks for spoiling it...
Does anyone want to discuss how we could address climate change without a carbon tax?
This is where my tin-foil hat gets to tingling on the climate change is real side of the debate.
Why is a climate tax the only solution you have?
I think AOC's green new deal isn't perfect, but it is a vastly superior plan to a carbon tax.
^^^^^^^Says team Dunning-Kruger in classic NPC fashion.
Damn, with you people it boils down to this. The information must come directly from the climate change division at the Bureau of Imaginary information or it does not exist,
I don't know which one is more pathetic, the fact that TS thought he would convince anyone with a 3 page paper promoted by Paul Joseph Watson, or that he was looking at Paul Joseph Watson to begin with.
The bibliography has 6 sources!!!!
Here in WA, it's been getting hotter and hotter, and there are many ecological things that show the changes as well. For example, I used to drive from Ocean shores to Spokane a lot. When I was a kid, a drive like that would PLASTER bugs on the windshield. When I started driving in highschool I noticed it less. Now, you get like 3 bugs per trip on your windshield. The bugs are dying off.
It's 3 pages, and has 6 citations in total.............
Yeah, yeah... fine, whatever, but had the climate change division at the Bureau of Imaginary information published the exact opposite, it would be promoted on their networks, 24/7.
Might want to promote shitty studies that are peer reviewed next time lol.
I'm not well versed on the science behind climate change, but will say I don't support anything that will deter people from being more environmentally conscious. I'm afraid some would use studies such as this as an excuse to abandon stewardship of our planet. Whether we're responsible for global warming is largely irrelevant in the overall necessity of taking better care of the environment. Micro plastics, pollution, destruction of habitat, etc are all things we need to get a better handle on and we don't need people shrugging shoulders while washing hands of their part in damage done because they read about something in the same sphere as being beyond their control. T
is all coming from a guy who enjoys using the great outdoors. From camping, wheeling or plinking in the bush to just chilling by a river I'm a fan of using the great outdoors in a sustainable and responsible way.
What are you talking about? There is quite a gulf between a paper that is 3 pages and includes less than citations, and a real study, done by those who care to employ the scientific method with rigor.
Here is one. 9 pages, It contains 54 referenced works, and has the added benefit of actually reading like a professional paper done with rigor.
Here is another. 26 pages, 46 referenced works, and again, reads like something above high school level.
Do you see the difference between actual studies and the tripe TS provided? I've seen better papers in English 101.
Agreed. It's weird people wonder why we're so unhealthy. We breath air, drink water and are mostly comprised of it, yet our air is dirty, and our water contains plastics and any given number of other materials not soluble in the human body.
Michigan has been much colder. Our spring was like winter this year. Your logic is flawed.
Pollution is bad, and I understand the theory of the greenhouse effect and how it could warm the earth. I believe it is happening, but a broader stroke of being anti-pollution for multiple reasons is both appropriate, and possibly what the climate change political focus is trying to distract us from.
Ive never understood this obsession with climate change. Its obvious we are killing our habitat. The oceans have islands of garbage and plastic particles almost everywhere. I get that some people say we are warming the planet and some say we are not but is it really debatable that with this many people living the way we do, that we are damaging our ecosystem beyond repair???
Arguing over temperature seems to be like arguing over the semantics of whether a bullet hit your heart and you will bleed out in seconds or if it just ripped through other organs and you will bleed out in minutes instead of getting to a fucking hospital to remove the bullet.
The Bible, Quaran, and Torah are very similar.
Sorry to call you out like that but I thought this was common knowledge. I am just letting you know, I am not trying to be a jerk.
Amen. Why clean up the pollution that's a fact now when you can argue over what might happen in 50-100 years?
Thanks for proving my point. I mean you have not even read that stuff, let alone read through the 100 referenced works!
And you certainly would not understand them had you bothered... be honest!
Look... prove me wrong. In your own words, please explain this:
Using multiple linear regression of several climate forcings, Lean (2010) reports climate sensitivities of ~0.3 C W−1 m2 for solar forcing on decadal time scales...
Don't feel bad, all the other NPCs believe it because of "science" too.
And again, what makes it science to you people is that it came directly from the climate change division at the Bureau of Imaginary information!
I seriously doubt this.
Don't project your own inability to recall or consume data unto others......
Nobody gives a dusty fuck about the side of the argument that simply throw their hands up and go "I dunno, I don't think that's convincing" absent an argument.
You're not even on thin ice, you're drowning, just like some dipshitted creationist.
Separate names with a comma.