Arctic melt unnerves experts

I don't think anyway is stupid enough to deny climate change. There are the people that argue human impact is less than the media portrays it on the other hand.
 
Hey I don't mind, maybe after the sea level rises a few hundred feet I'll own some beach front property.
 
People don't deny climate change. It's the cause they deny
 
Whether we did it or nature did it, it's irrelevant. What we should be focusing on is how to counter the climate change.
 
Man... I need to start doing my tour of all the frozen places of the world before it all melts away.
 
I will agree with all the people here that say its the cause that all those idiots deny. Whats funny is that they deny it using talking points from the oil lobby completely ignorning what science says about the subject.

So when the north pole is gone does that mean Santa is dead? Ask that to all the chrisitans, maybe that will get them off their asses.
 
No Limit said:
I will agree with all the people here that say its the cause that all those idiots deny. Whats funny is that they deny it using talking points from the oil lobby completely ignorning what science says about the subject.

So when the north pole is gone does that mean Santa is dead? Ask that to all the chrisitans, maybe that will get them off their asses.
Click to expand...

Don't leave it up to the Christians. A religious party isn't going to be able to solve the problem. Be more proactive.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Did you just say Artic?
Click to expand...

Haha, that was one of the first things I thought.

And, yes, it's true. Who cares how it's occurred, lets just get it fixed. Counter the temperature rises, and prevent us from dying...

What would be funny, is if humans were once at the same hight as we are now, but global warming wiped them out, and history repeats....
 
Remus said:
Whether we did it or nature did it, it's irrelevant. What we should be focusing on is how to counter the climate change.
Click to expand...

Which is kinda hard if we don't know what's causing it.
 
CyberPitz said:
What would be funny, is if humans were once at the same hight as we are now, but global warming wiped them out, and history repeats....
Click to expand...

:O

Hmm...
 
CyberPitz said:
Haha, that was one of the first things I thought.

And, yes, it's true. Who cares how it's occurred, lets just get it fixed. Counter the temperature rises, and prevent us from dying...

What would be funny, is if humans were once at the same hight as we are now, but global warming wiped them out, and history repeats....
Click to expand...

Thought, that would assume fossil fuels regenerate quickly (they can acutlaly come back, but it takes millions of years).
Either that or they would have had to use nuclear or renewbale as fuel for their revolution :p
 
No Limit said:
I will agree with all the people here that say its the cause that all those idiots deny. Whats funny is that they deny it using talking points from the oil lobby completely ignorning what science says about the subject.

So when the north pole is gone does that mean Santa is dead? Ask that to all the chrisitans, maybe that will get them off their asses.
Click to expand...

Idiots? What, for disagreeing with a scientific consensus formed from the opinions of a few thousand scientists? I think you'll find most people who disagree with this consensus are quite educated on the science.

What is a climate scientist exactly? Call me when you have a definition, because there doesn't seem to be one right now.

Do you know what percentage of co2 we contribute to the atmosphere? Do tell, I'd be interested to see what you think it is.

Oh and you might like to think about where funding for pro-anthropogenic climate change scientist opinion comes from. Unless you think that academic institutions don't have a vested interest in keeping the governments that fund them happy. Governments that are currently using the climate as a new source of tax revenue.

Oh, and don't forget, the Antarctic ice sheet is actually thickening.
 
Parrot of doom said:
Idiots? What, for disagreeing with a scientific consensus formed from the opinions of a few thousand scientists? I think you'll find most people who disagree with this consensus are quite educated on the science.

What is a climate scientist exactly? Call me when you have a definition, because there doesn't seem to be one right now.

Do you know what percentage of co2 we contribute to the atmosphere? Do tell, I'd be interested to see what you think it is.

Oh and you might like to think about where funding for pro-anthropogenic climate change scientist opinion comes from. Unless you think that academic institutions don't have a vested interest in keeping the governments that fund them happy. Governments that are currently using the climate as a new source of tax revenue.

Oh, and don't forget, the Antarctic ice sheet is actually thickening.
Click to expand...
Sources sources sources!
 
hp-sauce060510.jpg
 
It should be noted the same people that first denied climate change are the ones denying human impact on it today.
 
Parrot of doom said:
Idiots? What, for disagreeing with a scientific consensus formed from the opinions of a few thousand scientists? I think you'll find most people who disagree with this consensus are quite educated on the science.
Click to expand...

What like creationists?
 
Here is a simple 30 second lesson on global warming that is easily taught. I did some basic research about past climates and it became painfully obvious.

Here it is.

Get a sheet of paper.
Draw a horizontal arrow, about the length of the paper.
At the end of this line, write the word "time".
Now draw a sine wave that is intersected equally by the line.
At the troughs, write "Ice Age".
At the peaks, write "Tropical Period"
Understand.
 
Cheomesh said:
Here is a simple 30 second lesson on global warming that is easily taught. I did some basic research about past climates and it became painfully obvious.

Here it is.

Get a sheet of paper.
Draw a horizontal arrow, about the length of the paper.
At the end of this line, write the word "time".
Now draw a sine wave that is intersected equally by the line.
At the troughs, write "Ice Age".
At the peaks, write "Tropical Period"
Understand.
Click to expand...

That's just drawing a random sine wave, it is not based on any real observation and so there is nothing to understand.

In real life, nothing is a perfect sine wave, even simple harmonic oscillators have damping factors.
 
I was hoping to make it easier to put them on the right path of thinking but do you really want me to whip out century by century climate change records? The warming of the planet that helped lead to the dooming of Neanderthal and the rise of Homo Sapien? The cooling of bronze-age England, causing their low-land crop culture to fail and leading towards the rise of the sheep herds? Or should I just give them a push in the right direction and let them do their own research?
 
Gray Fox said:
It should be noted the same people that first denied climate change are the ones denying human impact on it today.
Click to expand...

The word 'deny' has no place in a scientific debate. It is emotive and quite improper. It is better suited to religious discussions, which incidentally is something the anthropogenic climate change lobby have become of late.
 
Remus said:
Whether we did it or nature did it, it's irrelevant. What we should be focusing on is how to counter the climate change.
Click to expand...

If humans are not as much of an impact as some folks would like to believe it's quite hard for us to then make a difference isn't it? Hence the problem, and frankly I've been lead to believe it's a natural pattern.
 
Kyorisu said:
If humans are not as much of an impact as some folks would like to believe it's quite hard for us to then make a difference isn't it? Hence the problem, and frankly I've been lead to believe it's a natural pattern.
Click to expand...

Well that's why I think it would take something extreme like a weather control device to solve or at least slow down this problem.

What we are doing right now is arguing who is to blame for global warming and more or less just hoping for the best... :| Yep we're doomed
 
We don't need to stop the process at all. We've survived it before, and an ice age to boot. We'll be fine.

EDIT: Of course, since we where scattered back then we didn't have the sort of "politics" we do now...
 
Parrot of doom said:
The word 'deny' has no place in a scientific debate. It is emotive and quite improper. It is better suited to religious discussions, which incidentally is something the anthropogenic climate change lobby have become of late.
Click to expand...
I wasn't debating science I was debating idiocy. Now go back to arguing against thousands of hours of scientific research and international consensus.
 
Gray Fox said:
I wasn't debating science I was debating idiocy. Now go back to arguing against thousands of hours of scientific research and international consensus.
Click to expand...

What a wonderfully ironic statement. I suggest you save that and examine it in a few years, once you (perhaps) get a bit more wisdom under your belt.

Firstly I'd like you to show me any statement by anybody who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change theory, which suggests that climate change is a myth. After all, thats what you said - would you care to back that up with a source of some description?

I won't hold my breath.

Even with such a wealth(!) of research, they're still not able to state definitively what they think might happen in the future.

Consensus is pretty meaningless. Science is not determined by consensus. It is determined by observation, testing, and rigorous analysis of the results. Thus far, there isn't nearly enough information available to form an opinion on the matter. And therefore, I'll take my chances and happily argue against punitive measures and crippling economic policies thank-you-very-much.

Oh and heres something to chew on: The percentage of co2 of the atmosphere, both natural and man-made, is 0.035%. The percentage of that figure which is man-made co2 is around 3.225%.

Do the maths, if you can.

The main 'greenhouse gas' is actually water vapour. Not that you'd care to know such things.
 
The percentage of co2 of the atmosphere, both natural and man-made, is 0.035%. The percentage of that figure which is man-made co2 is around 3.225%.
Click to expand...

The amount of polonium-210 needed to kill a man of 80 kg is 1 microgram, or 0,00000000125% of his body weight.

I guess it can't be lethal then, can it?

What the fuck kind of argument is that?
 
Parrot of doom said:
What a wonderfully ironic statement. I suggest you save that and examine it in a few years, once you (perhaps) get a bit more wisdom under your belt.

Firstly I'd like you to show me any statement by anybody who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change theory, which suggests that climate change is a myth. After all, thats what you said - would you care to back that up with a source of some description?

I won't hold my breath.

Even with such a wealth(!) of research, they're still not able to state definitively what they think might happen in the future.

Consensus is pretty meaningless. Science is not determined by consensus. It is determined by observation, testing, and rigorous analysis of the results. Thus far, there isn't nearly enough information available to form an opinion on the matter. And therefore, I'll take my chances and happily argue against punitive measures and crippling economic policies thank-you-very-much.

Oh and heres something to chew on: The percentage of co2 of the atmosphere, both natural and man-made, is 0.035%. The percentage of that figure which is man-made co2 is around 3.225%.

Do the maths, if you can.

The main 'greenhouse gas' is actually water vapour. Not that you'd care to know such things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except people smarter and more skilled than you have said what Grey Fox was saying. Do you deny gravity? Gravity is a scientific conseunsous.
 
PvtRyan said:
The amount of polonium-210 needed to kill a man of 80 kg is 1 microgram, or 0,00000000125% of his body weight.

I guess it can't be lethal then, can it?

What the fuck kind of argument is that?
Click to expand...

How much Polonium-210 normally exists in the human body?
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Yeah, except people smarter and more skilled than you have said what Grey Fox was saying. Do you deny gravity? Gravity is a scientific conseunsous.
Click to expand...

I deny nothing. Who are you, the Inquisition? You sound like it.

How do you know they're smarter and more skilled than I? I doubt you could even name names. The UK Government's chief scientist and advisor to the government on climate matters is a zoologist.

Gravity is a real and measurable effect, and completely predictable 100% of the time. Can you tell me exactly what the mean global tropospheric temperature will be in 5 years time?

And nobody has yet told me why all opposing arguments are reckoned to be at the feet of oil companies (not true), while ignoring the obvious risk of bias from bodies funded by governments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
jimbo118
NYTimes 4chan article.
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
xcellerate
xcellerate
CptStern
Lawyers/human weasels: "No one cared about Hot Coffee"
Replies
12
Views
778
Eejit
Eejit
Atomic_Piggy
Researchers play tune recorded before Edison
Replies
22
Views
759
Teta_Bonita
Teta_Bonita
jverne
stupid european politicians...making new coal plants
Replies
33
Views
2K
Parrot of doom
Parrot of doom
Back
Top