• 21 kids suing US gov over climate change denial; Trump to be the defendant come January 20th
    125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396412][video=youtube;YCcLggcPcj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0[/video][/QUOTE] The irony of this post shocks me. Kigen: "Debate is dead..." *Proceeds to kill debate*
that guy is an author of popular science books who literally owns land that is used for a coal mine, and has investments in a fracking group [img]http://i.imgur.com/szT3ks6.png[/img]
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51396425]isn't it interesting that you'll post individual scientists that confirm your views while ignoring the huge majority 95%+ of other scientists who are in agreement[/QUOTE] No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51396276]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?[/QUOTE] Even when stretching it that far it wouldn't work, since 'natural' implies that humans didn't spak those sunsabitches up :v:
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396463] I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE] Literal anecdote, are you [I]trying[/I] to be a gimmick?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396463]No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE] The ironic thing is that your the person believing Y2K in this instance and we're the child fighting against that. Your child self would probably be beating the shit out of you right now.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396463]No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE] the Y2K doom bullshit didn't have decades of evidence and peer reviewed papers supporting it from top academic and scientific institutions. Believe what you want, but you'll feel like a damn fool in 20 or so years.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396463]No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE]from the wikipedia page you posted at the bottom of the last page "Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research." do you understand this? do you understand how this is different from public polling? you're posting what should be hugely embarrassing misunderstandings of basic concepts and then using it to argue your point. maybe it would be more accurate to say scientists who have stated a position on anthropogenic climate change all agree that it is influenced by humans by vast majority, if you wanted to look at what scientists think about anthropogenic climate change you'd probably take a look at scientists who are saying what they think about anthropogenic climate change.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396412][video=youtube;YCcLggcPcj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0[/video][/QUOTE] weren't you [I]just[/I] criticizing people for hiding in their echo-chamber [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51396463]No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE] This is the most horrible case of confirmation bias I think I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51396480]the Y2K doom bullshit didn't have decades of evidence and peer reviewed papers supporting it from top academic and scientific institutions. Believe what you want, but you'll feel like a damn fool in 20 or so years.[/QUOTE] And neither does global warming. They repeatedly have those caveats at the end of their papers that say they cannot definitively conclude that humans are the substantial or sole cause of global warming. Why would these papers include such disclaimers? Because they don't have enough empirical data to actually definitively conclude such things. I mean its literally to the point that anyone that has skepticism of it is branded a heretic to be cast out. Why? Because they cannot back it up with empirical data. So the only way to push the agenda is to brand those who disagree with it heretics. This is the last piece I'm going to say on it. As this will continue to circle around forever. I really doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. And as I stated before, it will be several decades when things have actually happened that we can look back and see what has actually happened. Look at opposing views. I do. And you guys should too. It might not change your opinion, but it should help you form a better understanding of what is at play here.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;51396472]Even when stretching it that far it wouldn't work, since 'natural' implies that humans didn't spak those sunsabitches up :v:[/QUOTE] Humans are natural. Checkmate, scientologists. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51396529][QUOTE=Crumpet;51396480]the Y2K doom bullshit didn't have decades of evidence and peer reviewed papers supporting it from top academic and scientific institutions.[/QUOTE] And neither does global warming.[/QUOTE] You're legally blind, right? Like i get you can operate a computer, but your eyesight is too bad to properly operate a motor vehicle, correct? People have literally been giving you evidence this whole thread, there has to be a legitimate problem here where you cant read the graphs or papers or even the posts.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396529]And neither does global warming. They repeatedly have those caveats at the end of their papers that say they cannot definitively conclude that humans are the substantial or sole cause of global warming. Why would these papers include such disclaimers? Because they don't have enough empirical data to actually definitively conclude such things. I mean its literally to the point that anyone that has skepticism of it is branded a heretic to be cast out. Why? Because they cannot back it up with empirical data. So the only way to push the agenda is to brand those who disagree with it heretics. This is the last piece I'm going to say on it. As this will continue to circle around forever. I really doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. And as I stated before, it will be several decades when things have actually happened that we can look back and see what has actually happened. Look at opposing views. I do. And you guys should too. It might not change your opinion, but it should help you form a better understanding of what is at play here.[/QUOTE]i want to put you on a piece of arctic sea ice and slowly watch it melt while you watch youtube videos denying that it's happening
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396529]And neither does global warming. They repeatedly have those caveats at the end of their papers that say they cannot definitively conclude that humans are the substantial or sole cause of global warming. Why would these papers include such disclaimers? Because they don't have enough empirical data to actually definitively conclude such things. I mean its literally to the point that anyone that has skepticism of it is branded a heretic to be cast out. Why? Because they cannot back it up with empirical data. So the only way to push the agenda is to brand those who disagree with it heretics. This is the last piece I'm going to say on it. As this will continue to circle around forever. I really doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. And as I stated before, it will be several decades when things have actually happened that we can look back and see what has actually happened. Look at opposing views. I do. And you guys should too. It might not change your opinion, but it should help you form a better understanding of what is at play here.[/QUOTE] youre the one who doesnt understand what is at play
Exxon was the leading researcher of Climate change until their shareholders made them stop. Their models are still used to this day, and their research concluded their involvement in changing the climate through CO2 emissions way back in the 70/80's. It wasn't an if for them, it was a what do we do now? They choose to ignore it. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51396529] Look at opposing views. I do. And you guys should too. It might not change your opinion, but it should help you form a better understanding of what is at play here.[/QUOTE] The nice thing about science is an opinion is only as valid as the data you present. This isn't high school debate. Simply saying well I don't [I] believe[/I] in simple science doesn't mean anything. Your opinion isn't important unless you can back it up. Climate change is not an opinion. It is a simple, quantifiable fact of nature that has been understood as such since the 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered. You have gasses that absorb or reflect heat, and when you put outrageous amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere, it changes the dynamics of that atmosphere. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Can't say the same about the opinions of those that don't believe in science. Do you know why cloudy nights are hotter than starry nights? Because water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, clouds are made of water vapor, therefore on a cloudy night, a strong greenhouse gas is blanketing in heat in your local area. It's literally local warming. Now when you have a species pumping greenhouse gasses into the sky for about 100 years, you have global warming. You don't need a PhD to figure this out.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396529]And neither does global warming. They repeatedly have those caveats at the end of their papers that say they cannot definitively conclude that humans are the substantial or sole cause of global warming. Why would these papers include such disclaimers?[/QUOTE] Because that's [I]how science works.[/I] Anything that's not mathematics can't be proved, the only thing you can do is [I]disprove[/I] current models and replace them with better ones. As of today there has been no compelling proof that anthropogenic climate change is a false model and all the data corresponds to that model so far. Thus unless we find evidence of the contrary, [I]human intervention is the likeliest cause of global warming.[/I] With that in mind, how the hell can you be so fucking certain that it is [I]not[/I] the cause of global warming? Do you have evidence that shows otherwise? [QUOTE]I mean its literally to the point that anyone that has skepticism of it is branded a heretic to be cast out. Why? Because they cannot back it up with empirical data. So the only way to push the agenda is to brand those who disagree with it heretics.[/QUOTE] [I]I've already shown you why this is a ridiculous point of view.[/I] Any scientist that finds compelling evidence that global warming is not due to human intervention will be published in [I]a ton of papers,[/I] receive [I]a lot of funding for his research[/I] and be [I]remembered by scientific history.[/I] Your theory about scientists conspiring to drive some narrative makes absolutely zero sense because the competitive nature of the scientific community, where researchers have to fight for funding and exposure, makes it impossible. There's no big money, fame or recognition in publishing the same kind of paper with similar conclusion to thousands of others colleagues', so why would scientists collude to do just that if their narrative doesn't fit reality? There's absolutely no personal gain in doing that? If the conspiracy was real any of those "conspiring scientists" could very well go out and expose their co-conspirators by publishing compelling evidence that their narrative was fabricated and actually profit from it. You simply don't understand how the scientific method or the scientific community works, and that shows when you subscribe to baseless conspiracy theories like this. [QUOTE]Look at opposing views. I do.[/QUOTE] No you fucking don't. When exposed to 3 pages of evidence towards climate change being of human origin you haven't moved an inch and continue to be dead certain that the emission of over 30 billion tons of CO2 per year has nothing to do with it, despite all indications to the contrary. [QUOTE]It might not change your opinion, but it should help you form a better understanding of what is at play here.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should take your own advice and try to actually understand what everybody has tried to explain to you these past three pages instead of being entrenched in your own misinformed opinion.
Motherfucking Exxon says it's real [url]http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;51396676] You have gasses that absorb or reflect heat, and when you put outrageous amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere, it changes the dynamics of that atmosphere. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Can't say the same about the opinions of those that don't believe in science. [/QUOTE] Heck, on this note, I posted the chart earlier showing the infrared wavelengths that the earth emits and what wavelengths greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395178]-snip- Fuck it, I don't want to go down this road. Another, "if you disagree your an idiot" type thing.[/QUOTE] It's not that you're a idiot, it's that you have a on the fence opinion, it's like you want everyone to like you, so you say "Hey I don't think A effects B, but A isn't okay, so let's turn it into a C" You get what i'm saying bro? Grow a pair, not everyone is gonna like you, but you with on the fence shit ain't gonna fly when there's proof being shoved in your face left and right. If you want them to believe you, get some facts, sources that tell us why or how we aren't the main cause of climate change. I mean, sure we can adapt, but humans don't just adapt overnight, or even years, it takes a long time, and time is a fragile thing. We have accelerated the age of our planet, it's like making a human go through life faster than what we were designed for.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395178]-snip- Fuck it, I don't want to go down this road. Another, "if you disagree your an idiot" type thing.[/QUOTE] More like "you don't know the faintest about this subject and we're not really happy to listen to an ignorant person tell us we're the idiots?"
[quote=kigen]Your opinion/beliefs[/quote] My father was a climate change denier, even got me to believe it for a while. Then I did a bit of research and found out that holy fuck these rises in temperature are definitely not natural. Upon further investigation I realised that build-ups of carbon in the atmosphere are natural and they also deplete naturally due to gas being trapped in the ice when it forms, then being released as it melts (increasing global temps). This is very layman's terms I know however to the people who still believe that climate change isn't real [sp]i know you are reading this[/sp] just do some real research, not from your family, not from "climatechangeisfake.org" but from acutal scientific studies conducted by prominent scientists whose studies have been verified! Like I said, I used to deny it as well due to external influence. Do you [b]OWN[/b] (proper) research and then come to a conclusion.
Kigen reminds me of this comic [img]http://i.imgur.com/c8zZTnH.jpg[/img] I mean there's even evidence that the conflict in Syria was at least partially caused by the effects of global warming and climate change. That's another good argument to put on the pile.
[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] Oh look, more cherry picking. I guess all the other surveys of consensus have to be wrong because this one has a handful of critics I'm getting a lot of mileage out of [url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm]this page[/url] And hey as long as we're posting wikipedia articles [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect]this one seems relevant[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change]This one too[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas]And this one[/url] How dare people subject your posts to serious scrutiny and sourced rebuttals, what a fucking echo chamber!
Generally speaking if someone has to resort to fucking arguing [I]semantics[/I] of all things then they likely don't have much of a point to begin with. And all Kigen's been doing is try to work around actual points by writing bad retorts about semantics.
When I made this thread, I had hoped it would be filled with hope that the US government would be forced to recognize man-made climate change. Instead it was horrible derailed by a blind man in denial with reality, what the fuck.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395481] Cool, a Google link. Just because something is accepted doesn't mean its true. Creationism was being taught as fact in public schools in this country not that long ago. [B]Smoking was accepted and "proven" to be not harmful by "scientists" not that long ago either. [/B] Human knowledge is not complete. We are not all knowing. [/QUOTE] Complete bullshit - the first scientists who looked into smoking, wondering about the rise in lung cancer (a once very rare disease) after the First World War, discovered the link between smoking and cancer in the late 1920's. I doubt that any honest smoking studies ever published showed no harm from smoking.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396463]No 95% exists. And the video does cover that. Anyway, this is like fighting Y2K people. I remember as a child so many people seriously believing that all computer systems were going to crash and nukes were going to fly. My parents even had meetings at their companies repeatedly over Y2K. That turned out to be fake. I've heard just so many predictions of doom that its a repeated cry "wolf." Sorry if I don't believe this one.[/QUOTE] I'd like to clarify something here, because this just shows how little you know. Do you know what Y2K actually [b]was[/b]? I'm a programmer, so I'll tell you. "Y2K" was the result of the fact that many (not all) computer systems stored year numbers as two digits, eg, for 1996 they would just store "96". This would become a problem on 2,000 because the stored year would be "00" which the computer would read as "1900". Do you know [b]why[/b] nothing happened? Because people, including my father (who has been working for Chase, and before that Bank 1, for over 30 years) spent countless hours [b]fixing the code behind all this[/b] to avoid the problem. You know [b]absolutely nothing[/b] about any of the shit you're going on about.
[media]https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/800179367594688514[/media] there's extremely fucked up shit happening in regard to the arctic temp & melt at the moment, probably warrants a thread
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51398764] probably warrants a thread[/QUOTE] I really wish there was a "Environmental Discussion" thread where actual concerned users can discuss the issues, talk about environmental news and hopefully help one another find some way we can all make small differences in our local areas.
the arctic is melting during what should be peak time for ice growth. it's insane.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51396412][video=youtube;YCcLggcPcj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0[/video][/QUOTE] Imagine thinking a youtube video is stronger evidence then the nultiple papers we've given you. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] The earth being round is a theory. Gravity is a theory You dont understand how science or debate work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.