Climate Change Report

[Jarvan]

In your case you're apparently just an ALLCAPSINGASSHOLE.

It's the same style argument "We can't be polluting because then I'd have to be unhappy about my actions!" "We can't be descended from monkeys because then my Jeebus story would fail!" Then find research.

Science can't prove that God didn't create mankind. So you do fail in that regard.

I still say... if you want me to take you seriously about "climate change" Stop polluting the environment first. THEN I will listen to what you have to say.

Until then... it's like trying to listen to someone saying violence is bad.. while he is beating on a person with a baseball bat.

[waywardgs]

Science can't prove that God didn't create mankind. So you do fail in that regard.

I still say... if you want me to take you seriously about "climate change" Stop polluting the environment first. THEN I will listen to what you have to say.

Until then... it's like trying to listen to someone saying violence is bad.. while he is beating on a person with a baseball bat.

Jarvan only listens to hippies living off grid on a commune in Alaska.

[cwolff]

Jarvan only listens to hippies living off grid on a commune in Alaska.

Not even them. They'd have to use the grid to get their message out and, you know, Hypocrites.

[Parkbandit]

In your case you're apparently just an ALLCAPSINGASSHOLE.

It's the same style argument "We can't be polluting because then I'd have to be unhappy about my actions!" "We can't be descended from monkeys because then my Jeebus story would fail!" Then find research.

I use capital letters to illustrate your stupidity.

I don't believe it's as dire of a situation that you obviously do. I believe if you look at the money and the political push behind this movement, you will find that it's less about the actual environment and more about an agenda. So far, none of the dire consequences that were told were going to happen has happened.. just more bullshit predictions that make the movement look more and more full of shit.

[Warriorbird]

I use capital letters to illustrate your stupidity.

I don't believe it's as dire of a situation that you obviously do. I believe if you look at the money and the political push behind this movement, you will find that it's less about the actual environment and more about an agenda. So far, none of the dire consequences that were told were going to happen has happened.. just more bullshit predictions that make the movement look more and more full of shit.

Are we immediately going to drown? No, of course not. I do think we're capable of altering and even radically altering our planet to our detriment, however. I think it's important to look at the money and political push in multiple directions. I also detest anti-intellectualism and anti-science movements in general, given how I was forced to grow up in a hotbed of creationist/intelligent design idiocy thanks to conservatives and fundamentalist Christians. This stuff feels the same because I hear it a lot from the same people.

I don't feel the need to insult you merely for disagreeing with me, but you're marching right along with them. I don't think you believe the Earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs are elaborate fakes by scientists.

[Whirlin]

Science can't prove that God didn't create mankind. So you do fail in that regard.

I still say... if you want me to take you seriously about "climate change" Stop polluting the environment first. THEN I will listen to what you have to say.

Until then... it's like trying to listen to someone saying violence is bad.. while he is beating on a person with a baseball bat.

So... Unless you're a woman that's carried a child, you won't value someone's stance on abortion?
If you have never received welfare, you won't value their critique of the process?
So until we've passed congressional budgets, we shouldn't be making comments about how effective a president is?
Until we're all Dayko, you won't listen to opinions on gay marriage?

[Keller]

I can't decide which is more of a certainty - that the earth has been changing its climate since it was formed, or that we're going to have to go through this argument once every 527 days.

Florida could be covered in 18 inches of snow in the middle of July and PB would say that we're just in the middle of a natural cycle.

[Warriorbird]

I can't decide which is more of a certainty - that the earth has been changing its climate since it was formed, or that we're going to have to go through this argument once every 527 days.

Florida could be covered in 18 inches of snow in the middle of July and PB would say that we're just in the middle of a natural cycle.

An eerie enough thought to make me go back to watching True Detective.

[Parkbandit]

Are we immediately going to drown? No, of course not. I do think we're capable of altering and even radically altering our planet to our detriment, however. I think it's important to look at the money and political push in multiple directions. I also detest anti-intellectualism and anti-science movements in general, given how I was forced to grow up in a hotbed of creationist/intelligent design idiocy thanks to conservatives and fundamentalist Christians. This stuff feels the same because I hear it a lot from the same people.

I don't disagree... I just don't believe it's as dire as people who are profiting off this created crisis make it out to be.. while continuing to live their life in direct opposition to what they claim.

I don't feel the need to insult you merely for disagreeing with me, but you're marching right along with them.

lolwut? You don't feel the need to insult me, but because I disagree with you.. you feel the need?

ok.

I don't think you believe the Earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs are elaborate fakes by scientists.

What gave it away first.. my Atheism or my posting that people who believe the earth is 4000 years old are idiots?

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

There seems to be some misconception about the effects of global warming/climate change. The Earth is not in trouble. Life here will go on. Humans are in trouble. Slight changes in the environment can mean big changes for large populations. CO2 may be good for plants; changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is not good for mammals.

The references and grabs you posted are either incorrect, a small part of the bigger story or just blatantly misinterpreted to fit your belief system. Just read the link you posted about sea ice. You cherry picked one paragraph to support your ideas but half that article is explaining the phenomena and it's not a pretty picture. Heat islands weren't just ignored to make the math work. They were accounted for and they don't have an effect on total global warming since most of the earth is water and open land. The ocean increased .32 degrees fahrenheit. Do you have any idea how hard it is to warm that much water?

The ideas you presented are addressed in the NAS report. You should read it. At least it will give you information to try to refute.

I didn't cherry pick anything. All of those sources are also the same organizations that NAS/IPCC get their info from. I just didn't make dire predictions and then alter the data to fit my narrative. I pulled data sets for different locations and regions in order to show how random temperature has been over the years, the last 100 to be exact, in a "global" phenoma, you'd think you would see warming at least a little bit everywhere. But you'd be wrong. The only consistent warming trend that shows any kind of realistic rise is in very developed areas. You can go play with the data sets yourself. NOAA is widely regarded by IPCC and NAS, neither of whom actually do anything but compile data from actual scientists.