Why does the fact that the earth is warming piss people off so much? Its happening, accept it and stop politicizing and hating. I live in the Northeast. As a child I skated all winter. A white Christmas was ordinary. Now we rarely have a snow And when it does happen, it occurs in record amounts. Things have been absolutely out of whack for at least ten years. The effects are most extraordinary at the poles but gradually creep further. Keep fiddling while the planet prepares to burn.
@Time0Travel what is global worming? well I'm glad you asked!
global worming is a proven fact that humans are releasing to much co2 and methane gases into the atmosphere. now what happens is the atmosphere absorbs and gets heated from the infrared radiation from these gases. and you know what happens next? the atmosphere re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions!
enough of it goes to earth to cause harm. now for homework i want you to re educate yourself on the scientific method!
Believing something that doesn't require evidence for you is like is complete bullshit. In fact there is a word for accepting blind statements without proof. Dogma. And there is a word for believing they don't require evidence to be believable. Indoctrinated.
And what happens if science and religion intersect? You said God created all animals, so you obviously don't believe in evolution. Does your creationism win simply because it doesn't have to be proven? Seems like a lousy excuse for the inability to prove it, and the ability to prove evolution which gives it more verisimilitude.
Yes it does. Otherwise it's simply an irrational thought. With no verity to it. You said God created all animals. The fact that this is a belief does not render it true. The only way to render a statement like that true is to prove it.
You wouldn't believe stuff like "the Earth is shaped like a cubicle"? If someone does, you'd think him irrational. Him saying "it's just a belief" doesn't make it any less stupid or irrational.
This on is in the "Letters to Nature"-section of Nature, so it's not a peer-review, but I choose to included because it links to very nice peer-reviews.
w w w .gfdl. g o v /bibliography/related_files/jls9801.pdf
What? Are you talking about the peer-reviews? You asked me for proof and when I present evidence you dismiss it by saying it's not my opinion (which doesn't even make sense, since these reviews search for facts, not debatable opinions).
My opinion is irrelevant and this is not my opinion. These are major studies, which was what I thought you were asking for. What else do you you want?
Humans are NOT the cause of global warming. The amount of CO2 that human emissions produce is about 6 billion tons per year; however, there is a some 90 billion tons of carbon as CO2 circulating between oceans and the atmosphere annually and another 60 billion tons exchanged between vegetation and the atmosphere. Therefore, natural sources produce over 95% of yearly CO2 emissions, while man-made emissions account for less than 5%. These are all legitimate scientifically proven facts
If your "facts" (cough) are scientifically proven, then why did I show you peer-reviews have evidence to the opposite, where as you didn't provide any data at all.
If your body produced 5% more histamine every day, you'd be dead within a year. If your chromosomes are off by 5% you would be a male frog. Science isn't about big numbers, if anything it has thought us that tipping a delicate balance even slightly can have huge effect.
The tipping of this balance and the huge effect of these seemingly small changes, is discussed in 3 of the 4 reviews I provided you so I'm guessing you never intended to look into any of them and you didn't either.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Not to be the grammar nazi of this discussion, but if you are "so smart and intelligent," could you at least put a sentence together? We IB students happen to be very picky when it comes to proper grammar.
Where did I claim to be "smart and intelligent"? Has it ever crossed your mind that there live 5,5 billion people on this planet who's mother tongue isn't English? Off course, making up stuff I supposedly say and ranting about grammar is a great way not to answer the questions I posed or debate the inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your arguments.
Also if you are going to act as if someone else claims to be "so smart", maybe you shouldn't say things like "we IB students", it makes you come across like a douche.
So, did they teach you "IB students" how to argue in favor of your claims, or how to provide evidence for your claims? What about debating the evidence I have presented? Have you read these reviews and can you tell me what part you disagree with?
As International Baccalaureate (or as we call it, Intellectually Bad-ass) students, we learn the Theory of Knowledge. As it turns out, you can never really trust any sourse documents, even primary ones, because anyone can alter the way knowledge is passed from one person to another. Even scientific data can be scued either by false research or human error. So finding evidence that you actually KNOW to be true is near impossible.
Wow, you are one arrogant brat, aren't you, Mr. Intellectual Bad-ass? Do I need remind you that an IB isn't an actual higher scientific education yet?
Your "Theory of Knowledge" is true for about any piece of information passed on from one person to a next, so you will not talk your way out of this. Besides I don't suppose you're "facts" are gathered by years of personal testing and statistical research you did by yourself?
Does the intellectual bad-ass have an explanation for misquoting me?
Also, have you heard of Dunning-Krueger effect? I knew you found the best examples of Dunning-Krueger in arguing global warming and evolution but you are the textbook-example.
Your theory of knowledge is something you just draw out now, because you're backed in the corner. If you knew about this theory from the beginning and actually believed it you wouldn't have claimed you had the "facts" on global warming. We wouldn't even be having this conversation because there would be no possible objective outcome and that would still argue in favor conservationism, because it's better to be safe than sorry about the biosphere.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You misused a comma. Way to go. How does saying that I'm an IB student make me come across like a douche? We happen to be very intelligent and clever (and yes, they are college-level classes and, therefore, a higher scientific education). That's why they are called HL courses, fag.
I mentioned TOK because you asked me what they teach us in IB regarding arguing in favor of claims and debating things.
I misused a comma? That's your argument? Seriously?
No, the calling it Intellectual Bad-ass makes you a douche and as you clearly state further ("We happen to be very intelligent and clever "), you have no intention of taking any sort of relativistic stance towards what you perceive as your own knowledge. So your courses didn't do to much good, did they?
Your "theory of knowledge" isn't even specified by the way. There are plenty of "theory's of knowledge" and you don't state which one it is. Your ambiguous explanation hints to Popper's, but almost every scientific philosopher has a relativistic approach to evidence and proof and their own knowledge. So should any scientist and so should you, but I guess your classes defeated their purpose because here you are, claiming you are an ivory tower intellectual in every comment you make.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH It's quite a complicated subject. I don't know if you have the intellectual capacity to understand it, so I better not bore you with it.
Even if you did believe in the inability to achieve objectivity, you must realize this will also go for any data or argumentation you provide, not just for what I provide. If that is so, than it would still be the safest action to avoid further trouble and even this would be an argument in favor of ecologically justified behavior. If you truly belief no theory can be proven correct and knowledge is relative, and I seriously doubt you do, it would still be better to be safe than sorry.
You may want to drop that by the way. I'm sure you'll eventually believe it yourself if you keep repeating it but to me you have clearly demonstrated not to be intelligent and clever. You repeating that does not in any way augment the way I feel about your non-relativistic and very misplaced intellectual narcissism. So apart from annoying me, it's not doing much to the argument, other than making you shoot your own foot and looking like an narcissist.
"Um, those "smarter than you can ever hope to be" scientists in Europe are the idiots who stated that Pluto is no longer a planet, indigo no longer a color, and created the so-called "5th ocean" named the Southern Ocean!"
What is stupid about these things? Definitions get changed and that has implications. This is due to scientific advancement. If someone finds a virus with ribosomes, viruses may suddenly be classified as organisms, what is stupid about this?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Did I ever say it was stupid? How long have you grown up knowing that there are 9 planets, 4 oceans, and 7 colors of the rainbow that spell out the acronym "ROYGBIV"?
If one virus is found with ribosomes (which is impossible), that would not classify all viruses as organisms. The platypus, for example, has a bill, lays eggs, and is venomous, yet it is still classified as a mammal. Just because something is a nonconformist does not classify everything else as the same.
Why is it impossible for a virus with ribosomes to exist? Since you decided to touch upon scientific philosophy anyway, please explain to me why it is impossible to discover a virus with ribosomes.
A platypus has mammary glands, hair and three middle-ear bones, which is all it needs to qualify as a mammal. Some of this stuff you should be able to know just catching by the name MAMMAL.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What I'm saying is that if one virus is found to contain ribosomes, that does not classify ALL viruses in the world as organisms; it would be the only one, just like the platypus.
No, you said "If one virus is found with ribosomes (which is impossible)". So are you just making this stuff up as you go along and shift gears on philosophy or is this another claim for which I'm going to see no data or successful argumentation of any kind?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are incapable of "independent" or autonomous reproduction or metabolism. Although viruses have a few enzymes and molecules characteristic of living organisms, they have no metabolism of their own and cannot synthesize and organize the organic compounds that form them. Naturally, this rules out autonomous reproduction and they can only be passively replicated by the machinery of the host cell.
That is indeed the current definition of virus, as my point was, it can change. Like the definition of planet changed...
That is not data, by the way, that's a definition, which needs observations to make it hold any ground. Hint: you can't provide data for the non-existence of viruses with ribosomes. That would be like proving you can't speak Russian, you can do no such thing as prove a negative. They didn't teach you that yet, did they?
For a self-proclaimed smart guy, you are surprisingly unaware that there are 5,5 billion people on this planet who's first language isn't English.
You can keep doing ad hominem-attacks and claim you are smart, without as much as a shred of evidence against the data I provided (you know, the subject you are now trying to avoid, global warming) you may as well be claiming the Earth is shaped like a cube.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion."
Anyway, the data I provided is composed of things that I, myself, know to be true based on previously aquired knowledge (one of the areas of TOK), not things found on the internet claimed by scientists who may or may not know what they're talking about. I admit, I also may or may not know, but I'm the one who's still in school learning things every day.
"In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion." You are blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US, aren't you?
The data you provide you know to be true? How? You just claimed you can't know anything to be true? Have you been taking temperatures and CO2-levels personally since the 1800's or something?
You are still in school? That's an argument of your knowledge over scientists?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH No, I'm a 27-year-old IB student...OF COURSE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL!
"In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion." You are blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US, aren't you?" Are you implying that worlds outside the US do not use proper grammar? If so, that's probably not true.
No, I'm implying that nearly the whole of Europe and probably many nations outside that use comma's to signify decimals and that you're arguing about grammar against someone who does not even use that grammar all that often is pointless and not distracting anyone.
How would it be? I don't have a decent governement and your governement has all interest in denying global warming, seeing how drunk on oil your country is.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Bull. S***. Our asshole president, Obama (hate), Pelosi (total bitch), Gore (lying bastard), and both Clintons (one another total bitch and the other another lying bastard) all support global warming (I know our government sucks, for now.....). Once he fails to be re-elected in 2012, our government will be much more anti-global warming, like any self-respecting country should.
"Once he fails to be re-elected in 2012, our government will be much more anti-global warming, like any self-respecting country should."
Why?
Again, you have shown no evidence to support your claim and even if you bough your own Popperian theories, you'd still be better off getting rid of fossil fuels, as I explained.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Getting rid of fossil fuels? As in, ridding the planet of coal and natural gas forever? Or cease burning them as energy that runs the entire modern world that YOU live in too?
I don't drive 3 tons of shit-SUV I don't need on city roads to go around the block, I take the bus or bike. I don't consume 102 kg of meat every year like the average American, I'm a vegetarian. I don't crank up the heat to 25° C in the winter, I wear a sweater. I turn of the tv instead of putting it on stand-by. My laptop is on savings-mode. Small changes with big results. If anyone would try to better themselves in at least some of this stuff, that might be a start.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Ok, what DO you drive? You can't expect me to believe you do not own a car. I don't need city roads either because I live in a suburb, where we walk everywhere too. I'll bet you are a weakling since you don't have a significant source of NATURAL protein in your diet. I don't crank up the heat to 77 degrees F either; I keep it at a mild 70. You turn OF the TV? You mean OFF? Anyway, don't be a narcissist by saying you're better than me because you "go green" as the liberals call it
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Do you really think that our race could somehow single-handedly end all life on Earth? Intelligent human beings have been around for less than 1.09x10^-5 % of the 4.6 billion years that planet Earth has existed, and you think that the world can somehow end in that amount of time? Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane and ozone are the primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Without this heat-retention effect, the average surface temperature would be −18°C; life could not exist
Again, your words are empty. I don't debate the greenhouse-effect, I do debate the balance we have disturbed in it. Read the peer-reviews and show me some counter-evidence it you have any. Either except the gravitas of peer-reviewed evidenceand be prepared to provide peer-reviews or stick by your own words and assume you can know nothing.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I don't need someone else to tell me what to say or believe. These arguments I have made are straight from my previous knowledge about science and chemistry, something you clearly lack.
"Either except"? Don't those two words contradict each other? You mean "Either accept"? "Except" and "accept" are two completely different words with completely different definitions.
Who said the world will end? I never did, so stop making up straw men.
The world, this planet, is a pile of rock, metal and minerals with a hot core. it does not live and it will be alright. Many living things will be alright as well. We, however, will not be. If the temperature rises about 3°C 15-37% of the species on this planet will go extinct. How long do you think we can survive? We are already overpopulating. Add to that famine, water shortages, pollution, oil spills, . . .
Obama supports global warming? Seriously? Obama didn't sign the Kyoto-agreement, did he. Did Obama no lick BP's ass during the entire Gulf Spill? Your government will get no benefit out of global warming, or nothing compared to the giant profits it makes out of oil. Your country invades other countries to secure oil, remember?
What possible benefit could the Obama or the US government get out of abandoning fossil fuels?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Exactly! Obama is an asshole who has done absolutely nothing during his whole presidency. He may not, but his wife sure does.
I don't really think any government will get a benefit out of global warming because, as you said, global warming is a bad thing (which science has proven false).
Where does YOUR country get its fossil fuels, huh? Unless you live in the middle east, which I doubt, your government uses other countries as well. The US has Alaska, what do you have?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You're right, there's no way to be certain that our IB teachers are telling the truth to us or not, but your data cannot be proven to be true either.
Obama hates America? You watch way to much Glenn Beck.
"I'll bet you are a weakling since you don't have a significant source of NATURAL protein in your diet."
You are one lousy sciences-student. Why did you insert, let alone capitalize "natural"? It seems that you are implying there is such a thing as "unnatural proteins" and that these are in vegetables. So are you saying vegetables are unnatural or made up of "unnatural proteins"?
You have a lot of difficulty grasping the fact there are people who's mother tongue is not English, don't you?
I lack knowledge of science and chemistry? Chemistry is a science, by the way, so this kind of defeats the purpose of mentioning both? Also, why greenhouse gases do what they do is a matter of physics, not chemistry. Chemistry deals with the changes in matter, remember? If you are really an IB-student, you aren't paying much attention in class.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Hahahaha ha. IB chemistry and IB physics aren't offered as courses at my school (that is, unless enough people sign up for them). I take IB biology
The way H2O and CO2 react in the atomosphere is chemistry.
"The way H2O and CO2 react in the atomosphere is chemistry."
No it's not. H2O and CO2 are not changed into other molecules in the greenhouse effect, so it's not chemistry. The greenhouse effect is due to the physical properties of greenhouse gases. You don't even seem to grasp the very obvious difference between chemistry and physics.
@frog1599 "Hahahaha ha. IB chemistry and IB physics aren't offered as courses at my school (that is, unless enough people sign up for them). I take IB biology"
They should have though you the difference between chemistry and physics in high school. You proteins can be unnatural and you expect me to believe you study biology? Either you lie or they allow everyone into IB biology.
I love how you dwell on spelling and grammar to someone who's mother tongue is not English. Does it make up for the fact that you obviously have no clue to the actual content of this discussion (science)? Does it make up for implying there are "unnatural proteins"? Does it make up for thinking physical properties of certain molecules are classified under "chemistry"?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How was I supposed to know that your mother tongue is not English? You're telling me this now. It's just natural for us (IB students) to correct grammar if need be, not as a so called "distraction."
Tofu is unnatural? It's made of soy, you moron, is soy unnatural? Soy is a vegetable and the proteins in tofu, which I don't even eat that much, are just as natural as the soy they come from. How can a protein even be unnatural? Proteins are per definition organic.
No, you said "natural proteins", not "natural meat".
Unnatural meat? That makes just as much sense, none whatsoever. You don't need meat, by the way. A biology student ought to know that the only essential nutrient that vegetables lack and you can only get from animal products is vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is in milk and eggs as well, so since I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, I don't have a shortage of any essential nutrients you do eat.
You don't accept peer-reviews on global warming because of your TOK, but you are willing to take the word of 2000-year dead goat herders ,written down in a collection of dubiously translated desert-scribblings that has been disproved countless times, on possibly the biggest most preposterous claim anyone can make (knowing God).
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Okay, where did you get the delusion that goat herders wrote the Bible? First of all, the Bible never mentions goat herders, it mentions sheep herders. It was written by highly educated scholars and prophets, not desert shephards. How has anything in the Bible been disproven? Can you disprove it? Can science disprove it?
Few of countless examples. Then there is the NT that portrays certain major events that we have no other recollection of whatsoever in any historical source, like the census by August and the baby-killing by Herod.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Only one woman (Eve) was created from one man's (Adam) ribs, which is not meant to be taken literally. Nothing in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It's religion, not fact, so it's impossible to prove or disprove. It's just a belief.
And who are you to say that you (atheist) are better than the rest of us (believers)? You seriously believe that you are better than the rest of the world who believes? That's the best example of narcissism I've heard this entire discussion.
I never said I'm better than you. I am a better scientist. But not because I'm an atheist. It's because I'm a sane human being and you are a fallacious illogical hypocrite. Illogical because you believe in a personal God. An impersonal deity I've heard plenty of logical arguments in favor of, by agnostic deïsts, pantheïsts etc. But I have never heard anyone successfully defend the knowledge of a personal God, an infinite implausibility and you are not about to be the first one.
You want me to disprove God? You are kidding right? There is no way in hell an IB-student would ask me to prove a negative, if you are that stupid, you have not a scientific bone in your body. You must be lying about your education.
I'll tell you what, I want you to prove me a negative first. I'll prove to you there is no God if you prove to me you can't speak Russian.
Or no, better yet, show me what method you use to disprove Zeus and Odin and I'll use that method.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How do you KNOW that I can't speak Russian? How do you KNOW that there is no God? Claiming that I can't speak Russian or that there is no God are not knowledge claims - they are uneducated guesses. You would know this if YOU studied IB TOK.
Euhm, no because you obviously only apply it to stuff that does not fit your agenda. I would expect you to know that no one can prove a negative (which is the same thing as disproving a positive in an unfalsifiable hypothesis) if you studied IB though.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I understand where you're going with it being impossible to prove a negative. However, what is your definition of "a negative" in this context?
The same goes for God. So based on your TOK and my inability to prove a negative of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, why do you believe in God, but not in global warming?
The negative here is "there is no God" or "you can't speak Russian". It is impossible to prove these things. that does not mean you can speak Russian. it doesn't mean you can't either, but it's just as ridiculous to assume you can on the premise of not being able to prove the negative.
No one can disprove "a" God. The existence of a god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
However, I can disprove the account of your personal Christian God, an infinite implausibility, since we have an actual list of his characteristically and stories, the Bible. I've already shown that the Bible can be disproved easily so that's the best anyone can do. No one can actually prove a negative, you ought to know that if you really studied IB.
You are fallacious because you ask for proof but come up whit these philosophical theories when it's clear you are not going to win the scientific debate and you need to escape the peer-reviews. Which would be fine, if it were not for the fact that you are also a hypocrite, as I've already explained a few times.
I'm a narcissist? For thinking myself saner than you? Aren't you the one who called himself an "intellectual bad-ass"? Which is another example of your hypocrisy.
Don't use your TOK an these arguments, because it's clear you apply it only to what you want, when the scientific evidence is clearly stacked against your personal agenda and you need a way out of the gravitas of peer-reviews.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'm mearly saying that when it comes to this sort of thing, it's impossible to tell whether knowledge claims are true or false in a situation like this.
Ever heard of the concept of verisimilitude? Certainty is unachievable, but there is verisimilitude.
So you are basically discarding global warming, a finite possibility with mountains of evidence, because you can't be certain based on your TOK, but you believe in a personal God, an infinite implausibility, because a 2000-year old book with virtually no verisimilitude tells you so? You are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met.
You seriously think that the people who wrote plain bullshit like that about the Universe, Earth and the life on it and held up morals such as the punishment for rape being marrying the rapist have more credentials than scientists?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'll tell you what - read the Bible (the entire Bible) and then come back to me saying that it was written solely on the morals of punishments for rape, ok?
Oh no, it has lots of cruel punishments, outright violations of human rights for things we don't even consider crimes today. Then there is that awful God that kills and commands the dead of about 2 billion people. This is not counting the people he just likes to fuck with or torture, off course. Not to mention the sick systems he supports, like slavery, wife beatings, harems, etc.
You must have read a different Bible if these things are not in it.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How do you know any of these sources of yours are real? Were you actually there when the data was collected? Do you have a first-hand account of what actually happened? If not, you can't definitively state them as true.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH We have been expelling CO2 into the atmosphere for generations, and nothing has happened. Humanity isn't dead (far from it, actually) and the polar ice caps have not melted. According to this, there is no delicate balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
At one point in history people said "we have been using antibiotics for years, they are still effective", only decades later was MRSA discovered. You lack an understanding of science if you expect actions to have immediate consequences. Actually polar ice caps are melting, as you would see in the articles I linked you too. If you are going to pull your "you can never be sure of a source"-card again, remember that goes for your claims as well.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I am well aware that my teachers (my sources) may also be wrong. I'm not arrogant.
If it doesn't have an immediate consequence, wouldn't that disprove your theory that the atmosphere is on a delicate balance that would tip even with the slightest human interferance?
"If it doesn't have an immediate consequence, wouldn't that disprove your theory that the atmosphere is on a delicate balance that would tip even with the slightest human interferance?"
Euhm, take the example of antibiotics again and apply it. No. The lack of immediate negative effects did not disprove acquired resistance. One of countless examples.
So do you just lack understanding of the concept of chemistry or are you saying you don't know anything about the greenhouse-effect? In both cases, you should go study some more.
As I said before, either stick by your "theory of knowledge" and conclude it's better to prevent further possible damage to the environment, or accept the gravitas of a peer-review and provide some decent data to back up your argument, like I did.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Do you see this? You have no idea what TOK is or what is taught in it, so why do you conclude that I would "conclude it's better to prevent further possible damage to the environment"? It's for IB students, something you would never understand. Now yes, I do agree that we should recycle and plant trees, but we shouldn't go overboard with these radical ideas that we a destroying ourselves.
I had scientific philosophy, I know what your TOK is, even though I never learned it under that name. But if you are going to stick by it, then you should realize that you can never be sure of anything. If you aren't sure whether something will have good or bad consequences, the best thing to do is to work on from the worst-case scenario. Suppose you don't know if spilling acid on your hand will hurt you r not. The sensible thing to do is still not to spill acid on your hand.
I can understand relativism, I'm a follower of Popper, but you obviously don't believe it yourself or you wouldn't go around proclaiming your own knowledge as immovable. So I think this "theory of knowledge" was something you just brought up because you are unable to provide any data to the contrary. I'm not even arguing the objectivity of the data, you were simply unable to provide any.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH By the way, grammar error, "Stupid European scientists?" should be written "Stupid European scientists"? because my original quote did not contain a question mark at the end of it.
I have a PhD in common sense. I have a million reasons that argue my point but heres a simple one. What happened to Global Warming [the other side proved it wasnt is what happened] so mr smarty pants whats threatening about Climate Change they're called seasons. I never bought Global Warming but I do get that the earth heating would be bad I just dont get what is threatening about the climate changing seriously I'm lost clue me in
"the other side proved it wasnt is what happened" What? That doesn't even make any sense, I honestly don't know what this sentence means. Clue me in.
You think climate change are seasons? Seasons come back each year. They are caused by the relative position of the Earth to the Sun. Climate change happens because of changes in the composition of molecules on the Earth, who ever or whatever caused it.
So, you are arguing climate change is the same as seasons? I'm sorry but of all bullshit I have heard, this blows the lit. We aren't even arguing about the cause here, you are simply saying that climate change, as in the drastic statistical change in Earths temperatures, weather and climate as a whole over a period of at least decades, are in fact the same as seasons? Am I getting that right?
@mikedd56 OH MY GOD, THANK YOU! Finally, someone on this discussion board who actually KNOWS what he's talking about. Can't wait until that liberal asshole fails to be re-elected in 2012, and NASA can finally work on the Orion program.
David Suzuki is Canada's Al Gore and he owns 5 homes - one of them you can only reach by plane. He is employed by Canada's state TV station that the taxpayers have to pay for even though it's a terrible TV station - CBC.
@mikedd56 A former vice president cannot safely live in a little bungalow down the street. His house is more than 70 yeas old so it is difficult to upgrade but he has indeed installed 70 solar panels. Being one of the people at the forefront of the effort to educate folks on this issue for years far out weighs his carbon footprint by flying.
You focusing on any possible inconsistencies in Vice President Gore is the perfect example of how people don't see the forest for the trees.
@mikedd56 i argee nuclear is a great source to but, if anything back happens it does alot of damage look at chernobyl for example i know its unlikely to happen but with lots of nuclear stations around the world the chances would rise...
Be that as it may, if we were to shut down all traffic today, temperatures would still rise 2 degrees in the next 30 years. Nuclear energy may be one of the only buffers we have in our fight against global warming. It's not durable, but it produces little CO2.
You should read The Hot Topic by Gabrielle Walker and David King. Very good book.
# step process for how liberals argue when their losing:
1st - quickly change the topic
2nd - resort to name calling esp. the all time favorite, U are a RACIST! Just look at how the media portrays the TEA party b/c their gaining too much support
3rd - All else fails make a movie, they get to push their agenda w/ no1 disputing them & its not like u can be called a liar after making a movie
-Well except for Docu. like Gore who told many lies which this country proved were lies
to them by government POLITICIANS such as Al gore and other liberal Environmental activists. Your statement, "its proven that the world is getting warmer than before." how is that proven? Where is your info from? All leads back to thing's you hear in the media and on the internet. The greenhouse effect sounds good doesn't it? They make charts, films, and everything trying to persuade you. It's a buisness. It's called Hysteria, and they are getting richer, and you are getting poorer.
@iloveheartyloaf i have proof ive done it in school!!! Co2 holds more heat than the normal atmosphere! its a better conductor of heat therefore the more in atmosphere the hotter it will get!!!
@kargenlewis yes there is natural global warming and yes we are speeding it up and yes we are reaching a natural high point in the earths temp but we are making it faster and hotter quicker than the earth can handle...
just 6c higher and we are in big trouble and if man made global warming dont exist we will just start to cool down to an ice age...
@dappledopple What evidence do I have? I have common sense and I think for myself. You people are so easily fed this bullshit from corrupt scientist's causing hysteria, while being paid by Algore with the money you people give him. Scientist's have been coming out saying look people this is bullshit. Yet you continue to believe the corrupt scientist's. The only reason they're still going with it is because they want to keep thier job. Wouldn't you yes. Global warming is a scam period.
@iloveheartyloaf i think most of the people that dont believe this just cant be bothered to make an effort...
its called the green house effect maybe you should look it up rather than saying im gullible and believe 'corrupt scientists' 1 planet we can look to is venus second closest to our sun but the hottest so y isnt mercury hotter? um... GREENHOUSE GASSES Co2 it the main gas in its atmosphere, thats why!
@dappledopple I will ever make an effort to something I don't believe in or can't be proved using simple logic. I know what the greenhouse effect is and what global warming is. It sound's so true doesn't it? That's because they are simple examples that are twisted around so much that the average american and crazy environut takes so seriously. When we breathe we exhale co2. Every human does. Should we stop breathing because it hurts the earth. We need fossil fuels and there's no way around it.
@dappledopple Also If you are so woried about co2 how about you stop taking hot showers, stop cooking, stop driving your car to work, and stop lighting your house. Because all of those things revolve around C02 and the use of fossil fuels. People are quick to criticize everyone but when it coes down to it your doing what your complaining about.
@dappledopple change our lives to a fake theory? That might not even happen? I don't think so. We don't need to change. Everything has been going fine for ever. when the earth decides to end it will. not some global warming scam shit.
@willemixi Let's put it this way. When POLITICIANS start telling me to spend my money for fuel efficient cars and lightbulbs, it's a scam. How can people be so quick to debunk alien existence yet can't use the same common sense to se through these government scams? We can argue about everything on and on, but I get my statistics from my own common sense, and education that I have learned throughout the years. The ony thing the other side of the argument has is, false info that has been spoon fed
why are people telling me about CO2 im aware i believe global warming when i said 'you cant say releasing tons and tons of CO2 into the environment wont do anything' i meant how can people (not me) think that this wont do anything i know fully well... CO2 stores heat better that the average air any scientist could put co2 in a jar and heat it and do the same with a jar of normal air and you will see it stores the heat for longer and better... that is global warming
To me, the global warming theory is just a theory, that many enjoy exploiting.
But seriously, can you look out your daily-life-window and honestly tell me that humanity is not destroying the earth and each-other? and then we blame God for our tragedies!!!?
@mayoDVD You may not be aware, but "just a theory" is an unfortunate phrase that makes a speaker appear to know little about science. A scientific theory is a verifiable framework, not a mere hypothesis or guess.
"Just a theory" was popular a few years back as a creationist slogan, but as with the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory of climate change caused by human activity enjoys broad consensus among scientists.
@cwell70 you cant denny global warming, its changing us all the time... you cant say releasing tons and tons of CO2 into the environment wont do anything
@dappledopple CO2 is a natural gas and is required for life on this planet. At least life the way we know it. There was a time on this planet when CO2 was much more dense in the atmosphere. At that time, most of the planet was a lush green tropical planet. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O. . . People should educate themselves instead or repeating what they heard from a corrupt leader.
We had the bad luck of finding ourselves in middle of global cooling while some stupid mad wealthy bitches have taked themselves by gods in a mad course for owning high tech which warm this planet...The elites are causing global warming with their nonsen fever for experiment with our commun planet..then they blame all in us...
sci fi just cant get enough of it on tv - even though this is a little corny as its hard to take the girl from lost going to be on two shows at the same time soon - anyway online watch V Streaming -dot - info
there is natural climate change the earth at the moment is heating up anyway we are just making it worst, imagine that the earth is like your body 1 degree higher body temp makes you very ill yes, 1 degree higher to the the earth is gona have a huge effect
there were warmer periods even before the industrial revolution with all of its factories and cars even began explain that please. and explain why there was a period of cooling from the 40's to 60's while emissions from the ind. rev. should have driven the climate to warmer times..
why is it so hard for some people i am thinking for myself... global warming has increased sense the industrial revolution's!!! each 1 sent global warming skyward!
Wow more science based on guilt and emotion, they will need a new tool to spread the propaganda soon, um how bout ocean acidification. Be an individual think for your self, do this and they can never succeed.
hey bfornaro, if you had property in Japan (just saying) and your land was now underwater, would you simply accept it?
skullboyy 2 weeks ago
Why does the fact that the earth is warming piss people off so much? Its happening, accept it and stop politicizing and hating. I live in the Northeast. As a child I skated all winter. A white Christmas was ordinary. Now we rarely have a snow And when it does happen, it occurs in record amounts. Things have been absolutely out of whack for at least ten years. The effects are most extraordinary at the poles but gradually creep further. Keep fiddling while the planet prepares to burn.
bfornaro 3 weeks ago
@Time0Travel what is global worming? well I'm glad you asked!
global worming is a proven fact that humans are releasing to much co2 and methane gases into the atmosphere. now what happens is the atmosphere absorbs and gets heated from the infrared radiation from these gases. and you know what happens next? the atmosphere re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions!
enough of it goes to earth to cause harm. now for homework i want you to re educate yourself on the scientific method!
frantheman180 2 months ago
"Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Europol Says"
/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94&feature=channel_video_title
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
@frog1599
Believing something that doesn't require evidence for you is like is complete bullshit. In fact there is a word for accepting blind statements without proof. Dogma. And there is a word for believing they don't require evidence to be believable. Indoctrinated.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
And what happens if science and religion intersect? You said God created all animals, so you obviously don't believe in evolution. Does your creationism win simply because it doesn't have to be proven? Seems like a lousy excuse for the inability to prove it, and the ability to prove evolution which gives it more verisimilitude.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
Yes it does. Otherwise it's simply an irrational thought. With no verity to it. You said God created all animals. The fact that this is a belief does not render it true. The only way to render a statement like that true is to prove it.
You wouldn't believe stuff like "the Earth is shaped like a cubicle"? If someone does, you'd think him irrational. Him saying "it's just a belief" doesn't make it any less stupid or irrational.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
This on is in the "Letters to Nature"-section of Nature, so it's not a peer-review, but I choose to included because it links to very nice peer-reviews.
w w w .gfdl. g o v /bibliography/related_files/jls9801.pdf
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Oh, so these are not YOUR views or opinions but those of others. How original
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
What? Are you talking about the peer-reviews? You asked me for proof and when I present evidence you dismiss it by saying it's not my opinion (which doesn't even make sense, since these reviews search for facts, not debatable opinions).
My opinion is irrelevant and this is not my opinion. These are major studies, which was what I thought you were asking for. What else do you you want?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
Humans are NOT the cause of global warming. The amount of CO2 that human emissions produce is about 6 billion tons per year; however, there is a some 90 billion tons of carbon as CO2 circulating between oceans and the atmosphere annually and another 60 billion tons exchanged between vegetation and the atmosphere. Therefore, natural sources produce over 95% of yearly CO2 emissions, while man-made emissions account for less than 5%. These are all legitimate scientifically proven facts
frog1599 10 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599
@frog1599
If your "facts" (cough) are scientifically proven, then why did I show you peer-reviews have evidence to the opposite, where as you didn't provide any data at all.
If your body produced 5% more histamine every day, you'd be dead within a year. If your chromosomes are off by 5% you would be a male frog. Science isn't about big numbers, if anything it has thought us that tipping a delicate balance even slightly can have huge effect.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
The tipping of this balance and the huge effect of these seemingly small changes, is discussed in 3 of the 4 reviews I provided you so I'm guessing you never intended to look into any of them and you didn't either.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Not to be the grammar nazi of this discussion, but if you are "so smart and intelligent," could you at least put a sentence together? We IB students happen to be very picky when it comes to proper grammar.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
Where did I claim to be "smart and intelligent"? Has it ever crossed your mind that there live 5,5 billion people on this planet who's mother tongue isn't English? Off course, making up stuff I supposedly say and ranting about grammar is a great way not to answer the questions I posed or debate the inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your arguments.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
Also if you are going to act as if someone else claims to be "so smart", maybe you shouldn't say things like "we IB students", it makes you come across like a douche.
So, did they teach you "IB students" how to argue in favor of your claims, or how to provide evidence for your claims? What about debating the evidence I have presented? Have you read these reviews and can you tell me what part you disagree with?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Well, it was a run-on sentence.
As International Baccalaureate (or as we call it, Intellectually Bad-ass) students, we learn the Theory of Knowledge. As it turns out, you can never really trust any sourse documents, even primary ones, because anyone can alter the way knowledge is passed from one person to another. Even scientific data can be scued either by false research or human error. So finding evidence that you actually KNOW to be true is near impossible.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
Wow, you are one arrogant brat, aren't you, Mr. Intellectual Bad-ass? Do I need remind you that an IB isn't an actual higher scientific education yet?
Your "Theory of Knowledge" is true for about any piece of information passed on from one person to a next, so you will not talk your way out of this. Besides I don't suppose you're "facts" are gathered by years of personal testing and statistical research you did by yourself?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
Does the intellectual bad-ass have an explanation for misquoting me?
Also, have you heard of Dunning-Krueger effect? I knew you found the best examples of Dunning-Krueger in arguing global warming and evolution but you are the textbook-example.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
Your theory of knowledge is something you just draw out now, because you're backed in the corner. If you knew about this theory from the beginning and actually believed it you wouldn't have claimed you had the "facts" on global warming. We wouldn't even be having this conversation because there would be no possible objective outcome and that would still argue in favor conservationism, because it's better to be safe than sorry about the biosphere.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
So I guess, I'm not going to see any data on your part or argumentation against the reviews I provided.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You misused a comma. Way to go. How does saying that I'm an IB student make me come across like a douche? We happen to be very intelligent and clever (and yes, they are college-level classes and, therefore, a higher scientific education). That's why they are called HL courses, fag.
I mentioned TOK because you asked me what they teach us in IB regarding arguing in favor of claims and debating things.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
I misused a comma? That's your argument? Seriously?
No, the calling it Intellectual Bad-ass makes you a douche and as you clearly state further ("We happen to be very intelligent and clever "), you have no intention of taking any sort of relativistic stance towards what you perceive as your own knowledge. So your courses didn't do to much good, did they?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH "too" not "to". Anyway, that's not my saying, it's Isaac Mackey"s. Take it up with him if you have a problem with it.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
Your "theory of knowledge" isn't even specified by the way. There are plenty of "theory's of knowledge" and you don't state which one it is. Your ambiguous explanation hints to Popper's, but almost every scientific philosopher has a relativistic approach to evidence and proof and their own knowledge. So should any scientist and so should you, but I guess your classes defeated their purpose because here you are, claiming you are an ivory tower intellectual in every comment you make.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH It's quite a complicated subject. I don't know if you have the intellectual capacity to understand it, so I better not bore you with it.
frog1599 10 months ago
Even if you did believe in the inability to achieve objectivity, you must realize this will also go for any data or argumentation you provide, not just for what I provide. If that is so, than it would still be the safest action to avoid further trouble and even this would be an argument in favor of ecologically justified behavior. If you truly belief no theory can be proven correct and knowledge is relative, and I seriously doubt you do, it would still be better to be safe than sorry.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
You may want to drop that by the way. I'm sure you'll eventually believe it yourself if you keep repeating it but to me you have clearly demonstrated not to be intelligent and clever. You repeating that does not in any way augment the way I feel about your non-relativistic and very misplaced intellectual narcissism. So apart from annoying me, it's not doing much to the argument, other than making you shoot your own foot and looking like an narcissist.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
Go to Google scholar, type in anthropogenic global warming for over 100 more reviews.
w w w . sciencemag . o r g /content/292/5515/267.short
h t t p : // w w w .airimpacts. o r g /documents/local/fossil.pdf
h t t p : // w w w . nature . c o m /nature/journal/v351/n6324/abs/351304a0.html
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
"Um, those "smarter than you can ever hope to be" scientists in Europe are the idiots who stated that Pluto is no longer a planet, indigo no longer a color, and created the so-called "5th ocean" named the Southern Ocean!"
What is stupid about these things? Definitions get changed and that has implications. This is due to scientific advancement. If someone finds a virus with ribosomes, viruses may suddenly be classified as organisms, what is stupid about this?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Did I ever say it was stupid? How long have you grown up knowing that there are 9 planets, 4 oceans, and 7 colors of the rainbow that spell out the acronym "ROYGBIV"?
If one virus is found with ribosomes (which is impossible), that would not classify all viruses as organisms. The platypus, for example, has a bill, lays eggs, and is venomous, yet it is still classified as a mammal. Just because something is a nonconformist does not classify everything else as the same.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
Why is it impossible for a virus with ribosomes to exist? Since you decided to touch upon scientific philosophy anyway, please explain to me why it is impossible to discover a virus with ribosomes.
A platypus has mammary glands, hair and three middle-ear bones, which is all it needs to qualify as a mammal. Some of this stuff you should be able to know just catching by the name MAMMAL.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What I'm saying is that if one virus is found to contain ribosomes, that does not classify ALL viruses in the world as organisms; it would be the only one, just like the platypus.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
No, you said "If one virus is found with ribosomes (which is impossible)". So are you just making this stuff up as you go along and shift gears on philosophy or is this another claim for which I'm going to see no data or successful argumentation of any kind?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are incapable of "independent" or autonomous reproduction or metabolism. Although viruses have a few enzymes and molecules characteristic of living organisms, they have no metabolism of their own and cannot synthesize and organize the organic compounds that form them. Naturally, this rules out autonomous reproduction and they can only be passively replicated by the machinery of the host cell.
Is this enough data?
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
That is indeed the current definition of virus, as my point was, it can change. Like the definition of planet changed...
That is not data, by the way, that's a definition, which needs observations to make it hold any ground. Hint: you can't provide data for the non-existence of viruses with ribosomes. That would be like proving you can't speak Russian, you can do no such thing as prove a negative. They didn't teach you that yet, did they?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@frog1599
For a self-proclaimed smart guy, you are surprisingly unaware that there are 5,5 billion people on this planet who's first language isn't English.
You can keep doing ad hominem-attacks and claim you are smart, without as much as a shred of evidence against the data I provided (you know, the subject you are now trying to avoid, global warming) you may as well be claiming the Earth is shaped like a cube.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion."
Anyway, the data I provided is composed of things that I, myself, know to be true based on previously aquired knowledge (one of the areas of TOK), not things found on the internet claimed by scientists who may or may not know what they're talking about. I admit, I also may or may not know, but I'm the one who's still in school learning things every day.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
@frog1599
"In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion." You are blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US, aren't you?
The data you provide you know to be true? How? You just claimed you can't know anything to be true? Have you been taking temperatures and CO2-levels personally since the 1800's or something?
You are still in school? That's an argument of your knowledge over scientists?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH No, I'm a 27-year-old IB student...OF COURSE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL!
"In the context of your sentence, "5,5 billion" would be used with a decimal, not a comma, like this: "5.5 billion." You are blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US, aren't you?" Are you implying that worlds outside the US do not use proper grammar? If so, that's probably not true.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
No, I'm implying that nearly the whole of Europe and probably many nations outside that use comma's to signify decimals and that you're arguing about grammar against someone who does not even use that grammar all that often is pointless and not distracting anyone.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Distracting anyone? Why would I want to distract anyone? The only people having this conversation are you and me.
Ok, so you're not American. That explains why you have skewed opinions about our government: you don't have it.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
Again, nice detraction about the government. Why don't you get back on the issue?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The issue IS the government, fool!
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
How would it be? I don't have a decent governement and your governement has all interest in denying global warming, seeing how drunk on oil your country is.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Bull. S***. Our asshole president, Obama (hate), Pelosi (total bitch), Gore (lying bastard), and both Clintons (one another total bitch and the other another lying bastard) all support global warming (I know our government sucks, for now.....). Once he fails to be re-elected in 2012, our government will be much more anti-global warming, like any self-respecting country should.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
"Once he fails to be re-elected in 2012, our government will be much more anti-global warming, like any self-respecting country should."
Why?
Again, you have shown no evidence to support your claim and even if you bough your own Popperian theories, you'd still be better off getting rid of fossil fuels, as I explained.
You have nothing but empty words.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Getting rid of fossil fuels? As in, ridding the planet of coal and natural gas forever? Or cease burning them as energy that runs the entire modern world that YOU live in too?
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
I don't drive 3 tons of shit-SUV I don't need on city roads to go around the block, I take the bus or bike. I don't consume 102 kg of meat every year like the average American, I'm a vegetarian. I don't crank up the heat to 25° C in the winter, I wear a sweater. I turn of the tv instead of putting it on stand-by. My laptop is on savings-mode. Small changes with big results. If anyone would try to better themselves in at least some of this stuff, that might be a start.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Ok, what DO you drive? You can't expect me to believe you do not own a car. I don't need city roads either because I live in a suburb, where we walk everywhere too. I'll bet you are a weakling since you don't have a significant source of NATURAL protein in your diet. I don't crank up the heat to 77 degrees F either; I keep it at a mild 70. You turn OF the TV? You mean OFF? Anyway, don't be a narcissist by saying you're better than me because you "go green" as the liberals call it
frog1599 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Do you really think that our race could somehow single-handedly end all life on Earth? Intelligent human beings have been around for less than 1.09x10^-5 % of the 4.6 billion years that planet Earth has existed, and you think that the world can somehow end in that amount of time? Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane and ozone are the primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Without this heat-retention effect, the average surface temperature would be −18°C; life could not exist
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Again, your words are empty. I don't debate the greenhouse-effect, I do debate the balance we have disturbed in it. Read the peer-reviews and show me some counter-evidence it you have any. Either except the gravitas of peer-reviewed evidenceand be prepared to provide peer-reviews or stick by your own words and assume you can know nothing.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I don't need someone else to tell me what to say or believe. These arguments I have made are straight from my previous knowledge about science and chemistry, something you clearly lack.
"Either except"? Don't those two words contradict each other? You mean "Either accept"? "Except" and "accept" are two completely different words with completely different definitions.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Who said the world will end? I never did, so stop making up straw men.
The world, this planet, is a pile of rock, metal and minerals with a hot core. it does not live and it will be alright. Many living things will be alright as well. We, however, will not be. If the temperature rises about 3°C 15-37% of the species on this planet will go extinct. How long do you think we can survive? We are already overpopulating. Add to that famine, water shortages, pollution, oil spills, . . .
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You are overthinking the worst possible case scenario. It's not finite that any of that ludicrous nonsense will happen.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Obama supports global warming? Seriously? Obama didn't sign the Kyoto-agreement, did he. Did Obama no lick BP's ass during the entire Gulf Spill? Your government will get no benefit out of global warming, or nothing compared to the giant profits it makes out of oil. Your country invades other countries to secure oil, remember?
What possible benefit could the Obama or the US government get out of abandoning fossil fuels?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Exactly! Obama is an asshole who has done absolutely nothing during his whole presidency. He may not, but his wife sure does.
I don't really think any government will get a benefit out of global warming because, as you said, global warming is a bad thing (which science has proven false).
Where does YOUR country get its fossil fuels, huh? Unless you live in the middle east, which I doubt, your government uses other countries as well. The US has Alaska, what do you have?
frog1599 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You're right, there's no way to be certain that our IB teachers are telling the truth to us or not, but your data cannot be proven to be true either.
frog1599 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How does saying 5,5 billion is written 5.5 billion in American make me "blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US"?
frog1599 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599
"How does saying 5,5 billion is written 5.5 billion in American make me "blissfully unaware that there is world outside the US"?"
Seriously? You need even ask? Has it crossed your mind that not all countries use "." to signify decimals?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
Hate? Who does Obama hate?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Hate as in I hate him. Of course, Obama hates America, we all know that.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Obama hates America? You watch way to much Glenn Beck.
"I'll bet you are a weakling since you don't have a significant source of NATURAL protein in your diet."
You are one lousy sciences-student. Why did you insert, let alone capitalize "natural"? It seems that you are implying there is such a thing as "unnatural proteins" and that these are in vegetables. So are you saying vegetables are unnatural or made up of "unnatural proteins"?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH First of all, Glenn Beck is an ass, so don't go there.
I simply mean that tofu is unnatural.
frog1599 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I capitalized "natural" because when you can't use italics, underlining, or bold, you use capitalization for emphasis.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
You have a lot of difficulty grasping the fact there are people who's mother tongue is not English, don't you?
I lack knowledge of science and chemistry? Chemistry is a science, by the way, so this kind of defeats the purpose of mentioning both? Also, why greenhouse gases do what they do is a matter of physics, not chemistry. Chemistry deals with the changes in matter, remember? If you are really an IB-student, you aren't paying much attention in class.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Hahahaha ha. IB chemistry and IB physics aren't offered as courses at my school (that is, unless enough people sign up for them). I take IB biology
The way H2O and CO2 react in the atomosphere is chemistry.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
"The way H2O and CO2 react in the atomosphere is chemistry."
No it's not. H2O and CO2 are not changed into other molecules in the greenhouse effect, so it's not chemistry. The greenhouse effect is due to the physical properties of greenhouse gases. You don't even seem to grasp the very obvious difference between chemistry and physics.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Like I said, we don't have IB chemistry or IB physics
frog1599 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599 "Hahahaha ha. IB chemistry and IB physics aren't offered as courses at my school (that is, unless enough people sign up for them). I take IB biology"
They should have though you the difference between chemistry and physics in high school. You proteins can be unnatural and you expect me to believe you study biology? Either you lie or they allow everyone into IB biology.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
I love how you dwell on spelling and grammar to someone who's mother tongue is not English. Does it make up for the fact that you obviously have no clue to the actual content of this discussion (science)? Does it make up for implying there are "unnatural proteins"? Does it make up for thinking physical properties of certain molecules are classified under "chemistry"?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How was I supposed to know that your mother tongue is not English? You're telling me this now. It's just natural for us (IB students) to correct grammar if need be, not as a so called "distraction."
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
"How was I supposed to know that your mother tongue is not English? You're telling me this now."
I had told you 3 times by then so... Check the comments.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What is so wrong with the human race? Do you think we should all be killed for the sake of the planet?
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Tofu is unnatural? It's made of soy, you moron, is soy unnatural? Soy is a vegetable and the proteins in tofu, which I don't even eat that much, are just as natural as the soy they come from. How can a protein even be unnatural? Proteins are per definition organic.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Unnatural meat, doofus.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
No, you said "natural proteins", not "natural meat".
Unnatural meat? That makes just as much sense, none whatsoever. You don't need meat, by the way. A biology student ought to know that the only essential nutrient that vegetables lack and you can only get from animal products is vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is in milk and eggs as well, so since I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, I don't have a shortage of any essential nutrients you do eat.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH God created animals to be consumed by humans. Just saying...
frog1599 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599
"God created animals to be consumed by humans"
I hope that was sarcasm, because if you turn out to be religious after all that TOK-stuff, I'm going to laugh my ass off.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
You don't accept peer-reviews on global warming because of your TOK, but you are willing to take the word of 2000-year dead goat herders ,written down in a collection of dubiously translated desert-scribblings that has been disproved countless times, on possibly the biggest most preposterous claim anyone can make (knowing God).
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Okay, where did you get the delusion that goat herders wrote the Bible? First of all, the Bible never mentions goat herders, it mentions sheep herders. It was written by highly educated scholars and prophets, not desert shephards. How has anything in the Bible been disproven? Can you disprove it? Can science disprove it?
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Woman are made from the ribs of men. Wrong.
Plants were the first life on this planet. Wrong.
Heliocentric model. Wrong.
The Earth is 6000 years old. Wrong.
Few of countless examples. Then there is the NT that portrays certain major events that we have no other recollection of whatsoever in any historical source, like the census by August and the baby-killing by Herod.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Only one woman (Eve) was created from one man's (Adam) ribs, which is not meant to be taken literally. Nothing in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It's religion, not fact, so it's impossible to prove or disprove. It's just a belief.
And who are you to say that you (atheist) are better than the rest of us (believers)? You seriously believe that you are better than the rest of the world who believes? That's the best example of narcissism I've heard this entire discussion.
frog1599 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599
"Nothing in the Bible is meant to be taken literally"
A few days before that:
"God created animals to be consumed by humans. Just saying..."
Yea, point made.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
I never said I'm better than you. I am a better scientist. But not because I'm an atheist. It's because I'm a sane human being and you are a fallacious illogical hypocrite. Illogical because you believe in a personal God. An impersonal deity I've heard plenty of logical arguments in favor of, by agnostic deïsts, pantheïsts etc. But I have never heard anyone successfully defend the knowledge of a personal God, an infinite implausibility and you are not about to be the first one.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Ok, then. Scientifically disprove God for me.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
You want me to disprove God? You are kidding right? There is no way in hell an IB-student would ask me to prove a negative, if you are that stupid, you have not a scientific bone in your body. You must be lying about your education.
I'll tell you what, I want you to prove me a negative first. I'll prove to you there is no God if you prove to me you can't speak Russian.
Or no, better yet, show me what method you use to disprove Zeus and Odin and I'll use that method.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How do you KNOW that I can't speak Russian? How do you KNOW that there is no God? Claiming that I can't speak Russian or that there is no God are not knowledge claims - they are uneducated guesses. You would know this if YOU studied IB TOK.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Alright, insert some other language you don't know. Then disprove to me that you can speak it. Good luck.
And thinking there is a God is not an uneducated guess how?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
Euhm, no because you obviously only apply it to stuff that does not fit your agenda. I would expect you to know that no one can prove a negative (which is the same thing as disproving a positive in an unfalsifiable hypothesis) if you studied IB though.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I understand where you're going with it being impossible to prove a negative. However, what is your definition of "a negative" in this context?
frog1599 9 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
The same goes for God. So based on your TOK and my inability to prove a negative of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, why do you believe in God, but not in global warming?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
The negative here is "there is no God" or "you can't speak Russian". It is impossible to prove these things. that does not mean you can speak Russian. it doesn't mean you can't either, but it's just as ridiculous to assume you can on the premise of not being able to prove the negative.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
No one can disprove "a" God. The existence of a god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
However, I can disprove the account of your personal Christian God, an infinite implausibility, since we have an actual list of his characteristically and stories, the Bible. I've already shown that the Bible can be disproved easily so that's the best anyone can do. No one can actually prove a negative, you ought to know that if you really studied IB.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH That depends upon your definition of "a negative."
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
You are fallacious because you ask for proof but come up whit these philosophical theories when it's clear you are not going to win the scientific debate and you need to escape the peer-reviews. Which would be fine, if it were not for the fact that you are also a hypocrite, as I've already explained a few times.
I'm a narcissist? For thinking myself saner than you? Aren't you the one who called himself an "intellectual bad-ass"? Which is another example of your hypocrisy.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I did not, as I reminded you, Isaac Mackey said that, dumbass.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Don't use your TOK an these arguments, because it's clear you apply it only to what you want, when the scientific evidence is clearly stacked against your personal agenda and you need a way out of the gravitas of peer-reviews.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'm mearly saying that when it comes to this sort of thing, it's impossible to tell whether knowledge claims are true or false in a situation like this.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Ever heard of the concept of verisimilitude? Certainty is unachievable, but there is verisimilitude.
So you are basically discarding global warming, a finite possibility with mountains of evidence, because you can't be certain based on your TOK, but you believe in a personal God, an infinite implausibility, because a 2000-year old book with virtually no verisimilitude tells you so? You are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
You seriously think that the people who wrote plain bullshit like that about the Universe, Earth and the life on it and held up morals such as the punishment for rape being marrying the rapist have more credentials than scientists?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'll tell you what - read the Bible (the entire Bible) and then come back to me saying that it was written solely on the morals of punishments for rape, ok?
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
Oh no, it has lots of cruel punishments, outright violations of human rights for things we don't even consider crimes today. Then there is that awful God that kills and commands the dead of about 2 billion people. This is not counting the people he just likes to fuck with or torture, off course. Not to mention the sick systems he supports, like slavery, wife beatings, harems, etc.
You must have read a different Bible if these things are not in it.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How do you know any of these sources of yours are real? Were you actually there when the data was collected? Do you have a first-hand account of what actually happened? If not, you can't definitively state them as true.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599 "How do you know any of these sources of yours are real? "
Again, I can say the same of your claims, which would mean that it would still be better to be safe than sorry.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH We have been expelling CO2 into the atmosphere for generations, and nothing has happened. Humanity isn't dead (far from it, actually) and the polar ice caps have not melted. According to this, there is no delicate balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
At one point in history people said "we have been using antibiotics for years, they are still effective", only decades later was MRSA discovered. You lack an understanding of science if you expect actions to have immediate consequences. Actually polar ice caps are melting, as you would see in the articles I linked you too. If you are going to pull your "you can never be sure of a source"-card again, remember that goes for your claims as well.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I am well aware that my teachers (my sources) may also be wrong. I'm not arrogant.
If it doesn't have an immediate consequence, wouldn't that disprove your theory that the atmosphere is on a delicate balance that would tip even with the slightest human interferance?
frog1599 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frog1599
"If it doesn't have an immediate consequence, wouldn't that disprove your theory that the atmosphere is on a delicate balance that would tip even with the slightest human interferance?"
Euhm, take the example of antibiotics again and apply it. No. The lack of immediate negative effects did not disprove acquired resistance. One of countless examples.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
So do you just lack understanding of the concept of chemistry or are you saying you don't know anything about the greenhouse-effect? In both cases, you should go study some more.
As I said before, either stick by your "theory of knowledge" and conclude it's better to prevent further possible damage to the environment, or accept the gravitas of a peer-review and provide some decent data to back up your argument, like I did.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Do you see this? You have no idea what TOK is or what is taught in it, so why do you conclude that I would "conclude it's better to prevent further possible damage to the environment"? It's for IB students, something you would never understand. Now yes, I do agree that we should recycle and plant trees, but we shouldn't go overboard with these radical ideas that we a destroying ourselves.
frog1599 9 months ago
@frog1599
I had scientific philosophy, I know what your TOK is, even though I never learned it under that name. But if you are going to stick by it, then you should realize that you can never be sure of anything. If you aren't sure whether something will have good or bad consequences, the best thing to do is to work on from the worst-case scenario. Suppose you don't know if spilling acid on your hand will hurt you r not. The sensible thing to do is still not to spill acid on your hand.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
Because it's better to prevent than cure, you are going to assume the worst-case scenario in an uncertain situation.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 9 months ago
@frog1599
I can understand relativism, I'm a follower of Popper, but you obviously don't believe it yourself or you wouldn't go around proclaiming your own knowledge as immovable. So I think this "theory of knowledge" was something you just brought up because you are unable to provide any data to the contrary. I'm not even arguing the objectivity of the data, you were simply unable to provide any.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I brought it up because I was answering your question about what we learn in IB.
frog1599 10 months ago
@frog1599
"If not, go hug a tree"
Doesn't that just explain it all.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH By the way, grammar error, "Stupid European scientists?" should be written "Stupid European scientists"? because my original quote did not contain a question mark at the end of it.
frog1599 10 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH
I have a PhD in common sense. I have a million reasons that argue my point but heres a simple one. What happened to Global Warming [the other side proved it wasnt is what happened] so mr smarty pants whats threatening about Climate Change they're called seasons. I never bought Global Warming but I do get that the earth heating would be bad I just dont get what is threatening about the climate changing seriously I'm lost clue me in
mikedd56 10 months ago
@mikedd56
"I have a PhD in common sense."
That just says it all, doesn't it...
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@mikedd56
"the other side proved it wasnt is what happened" What? That doesn't even make any sense, I honestly don't know what this sentence means. Clue me in.
You think climate change are seasons? Seasons come back each year. They are caused by the relative position of the Earth to the Sun. Climate change happens because of changes in the composition of molecules on the Earth, who ever or whatever caused it.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@mikedd56
So, you are arguing climate change is the same as seasons? I'm sorry but of all bullshit I have heard, this blows the lit. We aren't even arguing about the cause here, you are simply saying that climate change, as in the drastic statistical change in Earths temperatures, weather and climate as a whole over a period of at least decades, are in fact the same as seasons? Am I getting that right?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 10 months ago
@mikedd56 OH MY GOD, THANK YOU! Finally, someone on this discussion board who actually KNOWS what he's talking about. Can't wait until that liberal asshole fails to be re-elected in 2012, and NASA can finally work on the Orion program.
Long live the NASA space program!
frog1599 10 months ago
stop making stupid movies and find alternative energy you yippies.
jesus they spend more time blaming people than trying to find solutions.
M1GreenEagle 1 year ago
@M1GreenEagle solutions exist. political action is needed to implement the solutions. political action requires arousal of voter emotions.
jffryh 11 months ago
RIP
talus007 1 year ago
@XxcityofevilxXa7x No, they're just making up the causes.
4cellar2door0 1 year ago
David Suzuki is Canada's Al Gore and he owns 5 homes - one of them you can only reach by plane. He is employed by Canada's state TV station that the taxpayers have to pay for even though it's a terrible TV station - CBC.
iwin4u2 1 year ago
@mikedd56 A former vice president cannot safely live in a little bungalow down the street. His house is more than 70 yeas old so it is difficult to upgrade but he has indeed installed 70 solar panels. Being one of the people at the forefront of the effort to educate folks on this issue for years far out weighs his carbon footprint by flying.
You focusing on any possible inconsistencies in Vice President Gore is the perfect example of how people don't see the forest for the trees.
spceman 1 year ago 5
@mikedd56 i argee nuclear is a great source to but, if anything back happens it does alot of damage look at chernobyl for example i know its unlikely to happen but with lots of nuclear stations around the world the chances would rise...
dappledopple 1 year ago
@dappledopple
Be that as it may, if we were to shut down all traffic today, temperatures would still rise 2 degrees in the next 30 years. Nuclear energy may be one of the only buffers we have in our fight against global warming. It's not durable, but it produces little CO2.
You should read The Hot Topic by Gabrielle Walker and David King. Very good book.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@dappledopple less nuclear power increases the chances that earth turns into a 2nd venus. I choose a second chernobyl over a 2nd venus.
jffryh 11 months ago
# step process for how liberals argue when their losing:
1st - quickly change the topic
2nd - resort to name calling esp. the all time favorite, U are a RACIST! Just look at how the media portrays the TEA party b/c their gaining too much support
3rd - All else fails make a movie, they get to push their agenda w/ no1 disputing them & its not like u can be called a liar after making a movie
-Well except for Docu. like Gore who told many lies which this country proved were lies
mikedd56 1 year ago
Good movie
Climpacman1 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf Co2 does not evaporate... liquids do... its a gas and it dont just disappear... nothing just disappears...
and they are not 'beliefs' they are facts backed up by solid research by many scientists over the world...
if you chose to disbelieve whats going on in the world around you i cant make you believe me... but i just want to make my point clear...
dappledopple 1 year ago
(cont)
to them by government POLITICIANS such as Al gore and other liberal Environmental activists. Your statement, "its proven that the world is getting warmer than before." how is that proven? Where is your info from? All leads back to thing's you hear in the media and on the internet. The greenhouse effect sounds good doesn't it? They make charts, films, and everything trying to persuade you. It's a buisness. It's called Hysteria, and they are getting richer, and you are getting poorer.
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf i have proof ive done it in school!!! Co2 holds more heat than the normal atmosphere! its a better conductor of heat therefore the more in atmosphere the hotter it will get!!!
dappledopple 1 year ago
@kargenlewis yes there is natural global warming and yes we are speeding it up and yes we are reaching a natural high point in the earths temp but we are making it faster and hotter quicker than the earth can handle...
just 6c higher and we are in big trouble and if man made global warming dont exist we will just start to cool down to an ice age...
dappledopple 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf what evidence do you have then...
CO2 may be a natural gas but when its underground and we are digging it all up, thats whats causing it.
dappledopple 1 year ago
@dappledopple What evidence do I have? I have common sense and I think for myself. You people are so easily fed this bullshit from corrupt scientist's causing hysteria, while being paid by Algore with the money you people give him. Scientist's have been coming out saying look people this is bullshit. Yet you continue to believe the corrupt scientist's. The only reason they're still going with it is because they want to keep thier job. Wouldn't you yes. Global warming is a scam period.
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf i think most of the people that dont believe this just cant be bothered to make an effort...
its called the green house effect maybe you should look it up rather than saying im gullible and believe 'corrupt scientists' 1 planet we can look to is venus second closest to our sun but the hottest so y isnt mercury hotter? um... GREENHOUSE GASSES Co2 it the main gas in its atmosphere, thats why!
dappledopple 1 year ago
@dappledopple I will ever make an effort to something I don't believe in or can't be proved using simple logic. I know what the greenhouse effect is and what global warming is. It sound's so true doesn't it? That's because they are simple examples that are twisted around so much that the average american and crazy environut takes so seriously. When we breathe we exhale co2. Every human does. Should we stop breathing because it hurts the earth. We need fossil fuels and there's no way around it.
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@dappledopple Also If you are so woried about co2 how about you stop taking hot showers, stop cooking, stop driving your car to work, and stop lighting your house. Because all of those things revolve around C02 and the use of fossil fuels. People are quick to criticize everyone but when it coes down to it your doing what your complaining about.
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf i am fully aware of all this, all im saying is we need to start to change are behavior towards global warming.
dappledopple 1 year ago
@dappledopple change our lives to a fake theory? That might not even happen? I don't think so. We don't need to change. Everything has been going fine for ever. when the earth decides to end it will. not some global warming scam shit.
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf
How can the globar warming can be a scam when the world is actualy getting warmer?
I know its part of the natural cycles but its proven that the world is getting warmer than before.
And knowing this, should we start to get prepared for a more sudden ice age?
Just saying.
willemixi 1 year ago
@willemixi Let's put it this way. When POLITICIANS start telling me to spend my money for fuel efficient cars and lightbulbs, it's a scam. How can people be so quick to debunk alien existence yet can't use the same common sense to se through these government scams? We can argue about everything on and on, but I get my statistics from my own common sense, and education that I have learned throughout the years. The ony thing the other side of the argument has is, false info that has been spoon fed
iloveheartyloaf 1 year ago
@iloveheartyloaf CO2 keeps heat more than the average atmosphere, so the suns rays are stored for longer that is global warming
dappledopple 1 year ago
Comment removed
dappledopple 1 year ago
Comment removed
dappledopple 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are people telling me about CO2 im aware i believe global warming when i said 'you cant say releasing tons and tons of CO2 into the environment wont do anything' i meant how can people (not me) think that this wont do anything i know fully well... CO2 stores heat better that the average air any scientist could put co2 in a jar and heat it and do the same with a jar of normal air and you will see it stores the heat for longer and better... that is global warming
dappledopple 1 year ago
To me, the global warming theory is just a theory, that many enjoy exploiting.
But seriously, can you look out your daily-life-window and honestly tell me that humanity is not destroying the earth and each-other? and then we blame God for our tragedies!!!?
mayoDVD 1 year ago
@mayoDVD You may not be aware, but "just a theory" is an unfortunate phrase that makes a speaker appear to know little about science. A scientific theory is a verifiable framework, not a mere hypothesis or guess.
"Just a theory" was popular a few years back as a creationist slogan, but as with the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory of climate change caused by human activity enjoys broad consensus among scientists.
(Wikipedia: Climate change consensus)
robopaladin 1 year ago
CLIMATE GATE !!!!!
Google it. You are making up numbers to fit your argument.
The truth will set you free...
cwell70 1 year ago
@cwell70 you cant denny global warming, its changing us all the time... you cant say releasing tons and tons of CO2 into the environment wont do anything
dappledopple 1 year ago
@dappledopple CO2 is a natural gas and is required for life on this planet. At least life the way we know it. There was a time on this planet when CO2 was much more dense in the atmosphere. At that time, most of the planet was a lush green tropical planet. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O. . . People should educate themselves instead or repeating what they heard from a corrupt leader.
01jerm10 1 year ago
@cwell70 or go one word further and google Climate Gate impartiality.
cuteascandy2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Educational and inventive, the documentary speaks with a strong voice...me and my friends watch it together at
NewWatchMovies(.)com
CarolChandler011 1 year ago
its everyones flaut that has technology and doesnt live sustainably in there environment,
dappledopple 1 year ago
We had the bad luck of finding ourselves in middle of global cooling while some stupid mad wealthy bitches have taked themselves by gods in a mad course for owning high tech which warm this planet...The elites are causing global warming with their nonsen fever for experiment with our commun planet..then they blame all in us...
Obataladance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sci fi just cant get enough of it on tv - even though this is a little corny as its hard to take the girl from lost going to be on two shows at the same time soon - anyway online watch V Streaming -dot - info
hollowbeach57 1 year ago
there is natural climate change the earth at the moment is heating up anyway we are just making it worst, imagine that the earth is like your body 1 degree higher body temp makes you very ill yes, 1 degree higher to the the earth is gona have a huge effect
dappledopple 1 year ago
there were warmer periods even before the industrial revolution with all of its factories and cars even began explain that please. and explain why there was a period of cooling from the 40's to 60's while emissions from the ind. rev. should have driven the climate to warmer times..
LemonAndYoghurt 1 year ago
why is it so hard for some people i am thinking for myself... global warming has increased sense the industrial revolution's!!! each 1 sent global warming skyward!
dappledopple 1 year ago
Wow more science based on guilt and emotion, they will need a new tool to spread the propaganda soon, um how bout ocean acidification. Be an individual think for your self, do this and they can never succeed.
glennimmortal 1 year ago