21 kids suing US gov over climate change denial; Trump to be the defendant come January 20th
125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51395805]volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of co2 a year, around 1% of the human output, and natural co2 output from decomposition is generally reabsorbed by ocean stores, vegetation etc.[/QUOTE]
Yep, generally called carbon sinks in the scientific literature.
[editline]19th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51395797]
You're [I]willfully[/I] ignorant and in denial, I don't know if that's because you have a horse in this race or if the idea of climate change impacting your survival is too much to bear, but you've got to pull your head out of your ass.
If only deniers like you were the only ones to end up being culled by climate change. Sadly, that won't be the case and people who had no hand in this shit will likely be the first to fall victim to it. That makes you not only a moron, but also a huge asshole.[/QUOTE]
No need to be so aggressive, people can (and are generally more willing to if not condescended to) change their opinion on climate change.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51395797]Seriously dude you have shares in coal and oil or something? Why are you so in denial of something that [I]the vast majority of scientists say is real[/I] and dismiss it [I]while having no expertise in the field yourself?[/I]
At this point it's not even being ignorant, at least if that were the case seeing all these peer-reviewed publications would have changed your mind (since no, that can't be a fucking conspiracy on the scientists part, if a scientist were able to disprove something that is so widely agreed upon they would get insane recognition and grants), but it's not even that. You keep saying ~they actually have no idea~ because you misinterpret the fact that no scientific theory can be outright [I]proven[/I] as scientists having absolutely no idea what they're doing ever. There's no outright proof behind the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, that doesn't stop us from using that theory in practice to create very complex and precise systems.
You're [I]willfully[/I] ignorant and in denial, I don't know if that's because you have a horse in this race or if the idea of climate change impacting your survival is too much to bear, but you've got to pull your head out of your ass.
If only deniers like you were the only ones to end up being culled by climate change. Sadly, that won't be the case and people who had no hand in this shit will likely be the first to fall victim to it. That makes you not only a moron, but also a huge asshole.[/QUOTE]
Oh because I don't believe human made CO2 is directly linked to substantial climate change must mean that I don't want pollution solved. Despite me repeatedly saying pollution is bad.
I'm tried of this fucking straw-man you people make of me. Pollution is fucking bad for us and our immediate surroundings. But that does not mean it has massive fucking impacts on the entire fucking globe. I don't know if you noticed but the Earth is fucking large.
What I am afraid of is when this shit gets prove to be bogus people will be less inclined to actually solving pollution because they've been lied to so many times.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395832]Oh because I don't believe human made CO2 is directly linked to substantial climate change must mean that I don't want pollution solved. Despite me repeatedly saying pollution is bad.
I'm tried of this fucking straw-man you people make of me.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between acknowledging that pollution can have adverse effects to people's health and the immediate environment and acknowledging that [I]it will trigger a mass extinction event if nothing is being done about it.[/I] There's quite a bit of difference in terms of urgency and consequences.
I'm also curious about why you see no problem in admitting that pollution has a bad effect on the surrounding environment, yet don't believe in man-made climate change even though scientific consensus supports this theory just as much.
Honestly you just refute any evidence that gets presented to you so I don't know what you're expecting.
Read up on greenhouse gases and how they work, then read up on how co2 is a greenhouse gas.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395832]Oh because I don't believe human made CO2 is directly linked to substantial climate change must mean that I don't want pollution solved. Despite me repeatedly saying pollution is bad.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is arguing you on ""pollution"", everyone here agrees that pollution is bad.
You keep trying to subvert the argument about man made climate change, something universally scientifically accepted, with an irrelevant bogeyman "pollution".
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395832]Pollution is fucking bad for us and our immediate surroundings. But that does not mean it has massive fucking impacts on the entire fucking globe. I don't know if you noticed but the Earth is fucking large.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha oh wow! That's some "look at this snowball" tier defense here, "the Earth is fucking large". I guess that trumps the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community. If that's such a grand argument, why don't you publish a paper about how the Earth being "fucking large" means mankind can't possibly affect its climate? You'd be remembered by history.
You know what else is fucking large? Mankind's impact on the planet.
[QUOTE]What I am afraid of is when this shit gets prove to be bogus people will be less inclined to actually solving pollution because they've been lied to so many times.[/QUOTE]
How can you still not understand? [I]If it were bogus it would have been disproved already.[/I] Scientists work by creating hypotheses and theories and then throwing everything they can at it to see if it holds up. With the amount of scrutiny global warming currently has you can be sure as shit that scientists threw as much shit at it as they could to try and show the theory is broken. Yet they couldn't. If 95% of scientists agree on climate change being dramatically accelerated by man then that necessarily means that they found no way to show it isn't true. Which in scientific context means manmade climate change is truth unless we discover some contradicting evidence out of the blue.
You know the difference between Newtonian physics and relativity? The latter is more "true" than the former. Relativity is a more general and accurate theory which applies to cases where merely using Newtonian physics would give vastly unrealistic results. Yet the vast majority of engineering projects still use Newtonian physics because they are accurate enough for those purposes.
Like physics, climate change models are imperfect, but if they are still considered accurate by the majority of the scientific community, it means those models accurately describe what is currently observed by climatologists. If this model were to be dumped for another, it would be less, yet still somewhat accurate. So the big picture of "more greenhouse gases=dramatically faster climate change" isn't going to be irrelevant anytime soon.
And in the 1970s it was accepted truth that we were soon about to enter another ice age.
This is getting to flaming levels....
[url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395957]And in the 1970s it was accepted truth that we were soon about to enter another ice age.
This is getting to flaming levels....
[url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
If O lyrics that had anything to do with anything
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395957][B]And in the 1970s it was accepted truth that we were soon about to enter another ice age. [/B]
This is getting to flaming levels....[/QUOTE]
Here what the scientific studies through the 1970's predicted.
[img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG[/img]
Part of the reason for the cooling and no-stance predictions was much less data was available and things such as a prediction of a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration which didn't come to pass.
Here's a paper from [url=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1]American Meteorological Society[/url] on [B]"The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus".[/B]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395957]And in the 1970s it was accepted truth that we were soon about to enter another ice age.
This is getting to flaming levels....
[url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51395980]Here what the scientific studies through the 1970's predicted.
[img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG[/img]
Part of the reason for the cooling and no-stance predictions was much less data was available and things such as a prediction of a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration which didn't come to pass.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't look like much of a consensus, huh.
Anything more convincing than that, pal?
There's a big fucking difference between thinking there is a small possibility something will be disproved and [B]being absolutely convinced that it will be,[/B] which is what you currently are.
Up to now all your rhetoric boils down to "sometimes scientific models are challenged or refined, thus the scientific consensus is just as likely to be true as it is to be false." which is ludicrous, if scientists weren't any closer to the truth than uninformed people there wouldn't be any point in having them would there?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51395987]That doesn't look like much of a consensus, huh.
Anything more convincing than that, pal?[/QUOTE]
Here you go.
[img]http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51395994]Here you go.
[img]http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Referring to Kigen's posts but that's helpful regardless, although a source would be required.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51396004]Referring to Kigen's posts but that's helpful regardless, although a source would be required.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart[/url]
To be fair, the question is about the existence of climate change, not what contributes to it. But still 97% of climate scientists are in consensus of human caused global warming.
I'm not gonna be part of this goddamn discussion anymore. I'm probably gonna kill myself from an aneumarysm or something like that if I keep this up. Worst of all is it achieves nothing.
All I know is I love this planet and life and nature too goddamn much. It's taken a million years to get where we are now, to the point where we can call this bundle of rocks floating in the middle of nowhere and nothing our home. We should be careful with our home because it's the only home we have in this immensly vast universe... Even as we are looking up into the skies, dreaming of seeing Mars become habitable, I think we should look down at the ground we currently walk on and see what we are allowing to go to waste. We're nothing more than guests here. We should be thankful for that. It's why I get extremely pissed off about climate change deniers. IT'S OUR ONLY FUCKING HOME. I love Earth too fucking much to just stand and allow it to go to waste and the more I see people denying things are going to get worse for OUR HOME the more pissed off I get. It's making me feel so goddamn powerless, it pisses me off to no end to see people believe some dumb goddamn MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT LIE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN THE REALITY YOU MADE UP IN YOUR SHIT-LOADED BRAINS. GET FUCKING REAL. It's too goddamn egoistical and holy shit there are ALMOST EIGHT BILLION PEOPLE YOU ARE ALLOWING TO CHOKE TO DEATH.
We may be able to colonize Mars, but why should we allow ourselves to let our cradle go to waste? To that I say NO. Call me delusional if you want, call me a heated dumbass frothing at the mouth if that makes you feel good, call me a brainwashed shill of the mass media if you must, all I know if you continue to deny this shit, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG BAD GOBBERNMENT TRYNA KEEP YALL CALM IN A FEW HUNDERED YEARS. OUR EXISTANCE IS AT STAKE.
It's kinda of sad, that, despite 97% consensus on climate change, only 45% of the public believes there is a consensus among scientists.
[QUOTE=genpung;51394705]I'm feeling a mixture of things right now, I have a little bit of faith humanity restored to see kids this informed and this involved but at the same time sad at the fact that kids are so concerned for their future their taking legal action to try to do something about it and even sadder when they probably won't be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
By kids you mean a team of lawyers looking to use kids as props to bolster their public image.
hey Kigen how long are you going to completely ignore Mort Struden's post that deconstructs basically your entire argument
[QUOTE=elowin;51396160]hey Kigen how long are you going to completely ignore Mort Struden's post that deconstructs basically your entire argument[/QUOTE]
How long are you going to ignore my arguments that deconstruct your entire argument?
We're going in circles. And the only thing 97% of atmospheric scientists agreeing thing was a made up fucking poll of scientific papers. Basically, it took any that might "imply" humans were the cause.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013[/url]
And while we're on the topic of polls. How well did polling work for the election or Brexit? Not very well.
So I think in the end we'll just run around each other to the ends of time. Or at least in a couple of decades. But if there is one way to start pissing people off its by acting condescending to them. Then you end up getting the exact opposite of what you wanted. Because some people will act out of spite.
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.
[QUOTE=elowin;51396160]hey Kigen how long are you going to completely ignore Mort Struden's post that deconstructs basically your entire argument[/QUOTE]
He's just going to continue ignoring it.
He's not man enough to admit fault.
[editline]19th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]How long are you going to ignore my arguments that deconstruct your entire argument?
We're going in circles. And the only thing 97% of atmospheric scientists agreeing thing was a made up fucking poll of scientific papers. Basically, it took any that might "imply" humans were the cause.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013[/url]
And while we're on the topic of polls. How well did polling work for the election or Brexit? Not very well.
So I think in the end we'll just run around each other to the ends of time. Or at least in a couple of decades. But if there is one way to start pissing people off its by acting condescending to them. Then you end up getting the exact opposite of what you wanted. Because some people will act out of spite.
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
You have no arguments and you're basically saying "I know I'm wrong BUT YOU GUYS ARE BEING MEAN SO I WON'T ADMIT THAT :((((((("
Make an actual argument or admit you were wrong. Nobody will judge you for admitting that.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
Ironic considering everyone so far has been open and willing to consider your arguments, you're just too fucking thick skulled to accept the possibility you might be wrong and that a bunch of shit being lit on fire 24/7 which produces a gas that naturally exists in the atmosphere, resulting in an over abundance of said gas, might cause some nasty side effects.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]How long are you going to ignore my arguments that deconstruct your entire argument?
We're going in circles. And the only thing 97% of atmospheric scientists agreeing thing was a made up fucking poll of scientific papers. Basically, it took any that might "imply" humans were the cause.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013[/url]
And while we're on the topic of polls. How well did polling work for the election or Brexit? Not very well.
So I think in the end we'll just run around each other to the ends of time. Or at least in a couple of decades. But if there is one way to start pissing people off its by acting condescending to them. Then you end up getting the exact opposite of what you wanted. Because some people will act out of spite.
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
Kigen, I understand your point. Your point is that human-caused climate change is "only a theory," and that there are no definitive answers. I kinda see where you're coming from.
The problem is that the burden of proof is now on you. The generally accepted theory currently is that humans are causing climate change and there are mountains of evidence to support that theory. You don't believe in that theory. So now you need to present your theory, and back it up with your own peer-reviewed research. Otherwise you have no cause to disagree with the established theory, and nobody is going to listen.
It's like disagreeing with the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory. You can disagree all you want but nobody is going to care unless you come along with more robust evidence than the other side. And the other side happens to have a lot of robust evidence.
In summary, you're free to believe whatever you want but now your job is to present your proof. If you can't do that, then you have nothing.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]How long are you going to ignore my arguments that deconstruct your entire argument?
We're going in circles. And the only thing 97% of atmospheric scientists agreeing thing was a made up fucking poll of scientific papers. Basically, it took any that might "imply" humans were the cause.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013[/url]
And while we're on the topic of polls. How well did polling work for the election or Brexit? Not very well.
So I think in the end we'll just run around each other to the ends of time. Or at least in a couple of decades. But if there is one way to start pissing people off its by acting condescending to them. Then you end up getting the exact opposite of what you wanted. Because some people will act out of spite.
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
We're going to run around in circles because of YOU. YOU are the one constantly deflecting whatever we say and show you. WHAT DO YOU EVEN WANT? TELL ME
Guys, technically Kigen isnt wrong, all these materials are technically natural and come from the earth, so its technically natural climate change when we spark those sunsabitches up and haul ass in our gas guzzling hummers cross country, dont you see?
Out of the mouths of babes...
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]How long are you going to ignore my arguments that deconstruct your entire argument?
We're going in circles. And the only thing 97% of atmospheric scientists agreeing thing was a made up fucking poll of scientific papers. Basically, it took any that might "imply" humans were the cause.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013[/url]
And while we're on the topic of polls. How well did polling work for the election or Brexit? Not very well.[/QUOTE]
Blatant false equivalence, taking published papers and looking at which ones attribute warming to anthropological climate change and plugging them into graphs is patiently not the same as public policy polling.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
If debate on facepunch is dead it's because of posts like the ones you've made in this thread, a total unwillingness to take facts at face value, and a disregard for the [I] actual debate process[/I].
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
You're deconstructing arguments and grasping for rebuttal straws instead of digesting the information that is being handed to you, it's no surprise you think it's an echo-chamber.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396198]
I think Facepunch as a debate platform is dead. Its just turning into an echo-chamber.[/QUOTE]
Person: I think the earth is flat
Facepunch: no its not, heres why
Person: wow this place is a damn echo chamber
First off, this is not an echo chamber since we arent censoring you its just that you have poor arguments
Second, we posted a heck lot more evidence than that. The concensus poll just shows most scientists agree with the data and its conclusion.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396412][video=youtube;YCcLggcPcj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0[/video][/QUOTE]isn't it interesting that you'll post individuals that confirm your views while ignoring the huge majority 95%+ of scientists who are in agreement
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.