Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

r/iamverysmart

 

you provided 0 evidence on anything

 

just bullshit around and expect everyone else to fetch it for you lol

He wants us to be a school science teacher for him. I've done this roleplay for hundreds of conservative clones like him in the past. Not repeating it again lmao. Just relegate the fuckers out of government.

Share this post


Link to post

I also find it ironic that conservative christian republicans consistently oppose legislation that mirrors the teachings of Christ...

Christianity is a tribal cultural signal for conservatives, not a moral code. That code is clearly monopolized by the socialists which is basically the secular version of Christianity. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just waiting to see what he brings to the table. I'm open to hearing all the bullshit and all the other takes but man if you don't have some clear cut evidence you're going to have a bad time convicing anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just waiting to see what he brings to the table. I'm open to hearing all the bullshit and all the other takes but man if you don't have some clear cut evidence you're going to have a bad time convicing anyone.

Last time I checked the skeptics were the ones with the burden of proof. I shat on that other MAGA hat moron a few pages ago with a quick google search. It really shouldn't be hard. The skeptic's arguments are incredibly scripted and are wheeled out predictably.

 

It's only a matter of learning their bullshit and responding to it over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Conservatives and their corporate backers are the minority. Regardless of what you think, I don't have to engage with you. People who accept the science are the majority. Might is right. You can't win democratically, and even if you didn't accept our majority, you would lose militarily.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

r/iamverysmart

 

you provided 0 evidence on anything

 

just bullshit around and expect everyone else to fetch it for you lol

 

I'm trying to see if you guys even know the science you're being so militant about.

 

I'll be waiting for your peer reviewed scientific articles on what you think climate change is.

 

I likely have a virtually identical opinion to yours. Feel free to ask someday.

 

This is the internet. I just told you there are thousands of documents online to read. If I were to personally provide the science in a botched manner, it would be less than anything a real academic journal would provide which you have refused to engage with regardless.

 

In other words. Climate science deniers are not worth engaging with or debating with. 

 

Dealing with climate change requires direct action in accordance with a coalition of the willing.

 

Conservatives and their corporate backers are the minority. Regardless of what you think, I don't have to engage with you. People who accept the science are the majority. Might is right. You can't win democratically, and even if you didn't accept our majority, you would lose militarily.

 

I'm not a climate science denier lol, quit putting me in a box that only exists in your head. If you don't understand the science then shouldn't you be cautious or more timid with it than you are here? You're borderline threatening me with military action on the internet over science you don't understand. Lets get back to the topic please.

 

I'm just waiting to see what he brings to the table. I'm open to hearing all the bullshit and all the other takes but man if you don't have some clear cut evidence you're going to have a bad time convicing anyone.

 

Do you consider climate model projections to be scientific evidence?

 

Last time I checked the skeptics were the ones with the burden of proof. I shat on that other MAGA hat moron a few pages ago with a quick google search. It really shouldn't be hard. The skeptic's arguments are incredibly scripted and are wheeled out predictably.

 

It's only a matter of learning their bullshit and responding to it over and over again.

Well there are multiple ways debates can happen. You can present your own case or simply tear down your "opponent"'s position, show that they are just parroting what they've heard without digesting any of it or knowing the actual value of it. You scored 33% on my most basic questions that demanded understanding of the scientific method and I wonder if those questions even meant anything to you for the context of this discussion. Whether or not you want to continue, I hope you at least stop and reflect a little bit on that. You're the only one interjecting politics into our conversation despite your initial claim that politicization only comes from far-right corporations. I'm not the right mark for your agenda here so please stick to science, because how nature works is far more interesting than you trying to impress your buddies with political rhetoric.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you think it's possible, or perhaps even likely, that OTHER governments in OTHER countries secretly conspire against their own people but it is unpatriotic and far-fetched to suggest that YOUR government would ever do the same, you have Stockholm syndrome and live in denial.
 

Your government doesn't care about you.

TRUMPBILL-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&au

Share this post


Link to post

Nomini, who was the fourth horseman of TPD? 

 

It was Singular, Hackbackwards, Red X, and...?

Ai09324850927450927435092453450897345097

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I likely have a virtually identical opinion to yours. Feel free to ask someday.

 

….....what are your views on climate change?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

….....what are your views on climate change?

 

Finally someone who gives a shit.

 

Where I'm on board:

The earth has been getting warmer since the little ice age, we're in an interglacial period (that is without a doubt temporary).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it plays a role in scattering radiated sunlight from the earth, back to the earth (but mostly into space).

Human activity is increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.

CO2 dissolves into bodies of water on earth and its solubility is inversely proportional to the temperature (according to Henry's Law) of those bodies.

CO2 having an increased abundance recently makes it at least partially responsible for the addition of more heat on the earth's surface (I'm wording it this way because the net global temperature change over a period of time could be negative, while the net contribution of heat from CO2 is still positive in that system).

 

Where I begin to part ways:

The climate always changes (I say this not because it's disputed by anyone, but because it calls into question the suspicious use of "climate change" as a name after "global warming" failed).

Our equations in fluid mechanics fail us when turbulence occurs due to the Navier-Stokes smoothness and existence problem, which is an issue because climate modeling requires fluid mechanics to describe the behavior of the atmosphere and turbulence is extremely commonplace (this is a pretty big deal for the reliability of climate model predictions, hence why I had asked about modeling earlier).

Cloud, ocean, volcanic, and solar behavior are all insanely difficult to model because there are stochastic properties in all of them (random properties can't be modeled, for obvious reasons).

The earth has been getting greener recently because optimal CO2 concentration for plants is around 1000 ppm, at 400 ppm they grow much slower.

I don't think the evidence is good that CO2 drives temperature on the earth because it's all proxy data and modeling.

If I make a climate model and I use it to predict what the global average temperature will be in 100 years, I have no way to test my prediction, so I'm not doing science at that point because I'm making untestable predictions (unless I want to wait 100 years for a meaningless answer).

There are good reasons to believe a solar grand minimum is imminent, as they occur on average every 400 years and the last one was at the end of the 16th century.

 

Where I gtfo:

The only proposed solutions by climate change activists are green energy and a carbon tax, which are absolute trash.

Nobody is allowed to ask questions about the science without getting called a denier or far-right whatever.

Activists don't understand that consensus is irrelevant in the scientific method and that the "97% consensus" isn't portrayed as what it really is.

Activists don't understand that climate change is a postmodern scientific field (ie it's new and just trying to gain its bearings) so it should in principle be more reserved in its entry to the mainstream until it can build some street cred.

Activists don't understand that earth's climate represents one of the most complex systems known to man, which only exacerbates the problems I mentioned earlier about major unsolved problems in fluid mechanics and stochastic behaviors of most of the largest climate-driving forces.

 

What I want to learn more about:

How CO2 concentration adds heat to the atmosphere, I suspect that it plateaus at a certain point so that doubling or tripling concentration after that have negligible effects.

How CO2 concentration and cloud seeding are related, as well as how cloud seeding relates to major changes in global temperature.

 

 

There's other stuff but that's a good start.

 

MAGA

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Finally someone who gives a shit.

 

Where I'm on board:

The earth has been getting warmer since the little ice age, we're in an interglacial period (that is without a doubt temporary).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it plays a role in scattering radiated sunlight from the earth, back to the earth (but mostly into space).

Human activity is increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.

CO2 dissolves into bodies of water on earth and its solubility is inversely proportional to the temperature (according to Henry's Law) of those bodies.

CO2 having an increased abundance recently makes it at least partially responsible for the addition of more heat on the earth's surface (I'm wording it this way because the net global temperature change over a period of time could be negative, while the net contribution of heat from CO2 is still positive in that system).

 

Where I begin to part ways:

The climate always changes (I say this not because it's disputed by anyone, but because it calls into question the suspicious use of "climate change" as a name after "global warming" failed).

Our equations in fluid mechanics fail us when turbulence occurs due to the Navier-Stokes smoothness and existence problem, which is an issue because climate modeling requires fluid mechanics to describe the behavior of the atmosphere and turbulence is extremely commonplace (this is a pretty big deal for the reliability of climate model predictions, hence why I had asked about modeling earlier).

Cloud, ocean, volcanic, and solar behavior are all insanely difficult to model because there are stochastic properties in all of them (random properties can't be modeled, for obvious reasons).

The earth has been getting greener recently because optimal CO2 concentration for plants is around 1000 ppm, at 400 ppm they grow much slower.

I don't think the evidence is good that CO2 drives temperature on the earth because it's all proxy data and modeling.

If I make a climate model and I use it to predict what the global average temperature will be in 100 years, I have no way to test my prediction, so I'm not doing science at that point because I'm making untestable predictions (unless I want to wait 100 years for a meaningless answer).

There are good reasons to believe a solar grand minimum is imminent, as they occur on average every 400 years and the last one was at the end of the 16th century.

 

Where I gtfo:

The only proposed solutions by climate change activists are green energy and a carbon tax, which are absolute trash.

Nobody is allowed to ask questions about the science without getting called a denier or far-right whatever.

Activists don't understand that consensus is irrelevant in the scientific method and that the "97% consensus" isn't portrayed as what it really is.

Activists don't understand that climate change is a postmodern scientific field (ie it's new and just trying to gain its bearings) so it should in principle be more reserved in its entry to the mainstream until it can build some street cred.

Activists don't understand that earth's climate represents one of the most complex systems known to man, which only exacerbates the problems I mentioned earlier about major unsolved problems in fluid mechanics and stochastic behaviors of most of the largest climate-driving forces.

 

What I want to learn more about:

How CO2 concentration adds heat to the atmosphere, I suspect that it plateaus at a certain point so that doubling or tripling concentration after that have negligible effects.

How CO2 concentration and cloud seeding are related, as well as how cloud seeding relates to major changes in global temperature.

 

 

There's other stuff but that's a good start.

 

MAGA

Awesome post.

 

Carbon tax is the reason I opposed the Paris deal. It would mainly hurt poor people, and I don't believe that big contributors of CO2(China etc) would actually follow the US lead. In fact I think China would double down and overtake the US economy. I'm no expert but I don't see why nuclear power isn't utilised more. Either way I believe smart people will develop numerous ways to get energy without adding CO2. They are already working on it.

 

Also we have people like Elon Musk making electric cars that go 0-60 in 1.9 seconds.https://www.caranddriver.com/news/new-tesla-roadster-first-look-zero-to-60-in-1-9-seconds-250-mph-top-speed-620-mile-range

 

Which is fucking rediculous. Imagine a Tesla smoking a hellcat challenger.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just waiting to see what he brings to the table. I'm open to hearing all the bullshit and all the other takes but man if you don't have some clear cut evidence you're going to have a bad time convicing anyone.

Is this not asking to you? Why do I have to ask you on a public forum on what your opinion is? I thought this was the whole point of forum threads on the internet that you can interject when you please as long as it pertains to the subject manner.........

 

As for your analysis of CO2, it's wrong. You can do experimentation that in every aspect if an atomosphere has more CO2 it will be a warmer. Venus has an atmospheric content of 96% CO2, heat has a very hard time leaving there. Of course you can't exactly have another earth model and test and see what x amount of CO2 would do to the atmosphere lol, but we do know that if in a closed envoirnment scale getting as close as possible to the same properties as earths climate that if you add more CO2 the temps rise, and the more CO2 you add the higher the temps get.

 

Climate modeling is so far the closest we can get to emulating earth envoirnment. Saying that because it isn't 100% perfect earth climate doesn't allow you to just discard it and say it's worthless.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know how much CO2 is released due to tectonic plate shifts/subduction zones vs CO2 created by humans?

 

I heard somewhere that the 10 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 emissions than every automobile on earth combined... I thought that was neat.

 

I also heard that wildfires produce as much CO2 as cars. I wonder how much CO2 those forest fires in California produced. What's their fucking problem, why don't they prevent them? What about when Indonesia went up in smoke in 1997? That had to have been a metric fuck ton. Good thing we have fire fighters. I wonder how much C02 was released into the atmosphere from wild fires before there were fire fighters to put them out...

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know how much CO2 is released due to tectonic plate shifts/subduction zones vs CO2 created by humans?

 

I heard somewhere that the 10 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 emissions than every automobile on earth combined... I thought that was neat.

 

I also heard that wildfires produce as much CO2 as cars. I wonder how much CO2 those forest fires in California produced. What's their fucking problem, why don't they prevent them? What about when Indonesia went up in smoke in 1997? That had to have been a metric fuck ton. Good thing we have fire fighters. I wonder how much C02 was released into the atmosphere from wild fires before there were fire fighters to put them out...

Don't forget about farts dude.

 

How many farts per day per human? Maybe 10? (Id wager in the 30-40 range in India) how many cubic feet per fart.. I'd guess about 10', now multiply that by 7.7 billion. that equates to roughly 77 billion cubic feet of CO2 fart emissions across the planet EVERYDAY.

 

#themoreyouknow

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm trying to see if you guys even know the science you're being so militant about.

 

 

I likely have a virtually identical opinion to yours. Feel free to ask someday.

 

 

I'm not a climate science denier lol, quit putting me in a box that only exists in your head. If you don't understand the science then shouldn't you be cautious or more timid with it than you are here? You're borderline threatening me with military action on the internet over science you don't understand. Lets get back to the topic please.

 

 

Do you consider climate model projections to be scientific evidence?

 

 

Well there are multiple ways debates can happen. You can present your own case or simply tear down your "opponent"'s position, show that they are just parroting what they've heard without digesting any of it or knowing the actual value of it. You scored 33% on my most basic questions that demanded understanding of the scientific method and I wonder if those questions even meant anything to you for the context of this discussion. Whether or not you want to continue, I hope you at least stop and reflect a little bit on that. You're the only one interjecting politics into our conversation despite your initial claim that politicization only comes from far-right corporations. I'm not the right mark for your agenda here so please stick to science, because how nature works is far more interesting than you trying to impress your buddies with political rhetoric.

Alright let's stick to science. Prove to me climate change is fake. I don't even know your position yet lmao.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Where I gtfo:

The only proposed solutions by climate change activists are green energy and a carbon tax, which are absolute trash.

Nobody is allowed to ask questions about the science without getting called a denier or far-right whatever.

Activists don't understand that consensus is irrelevant in the scientific method and that the "97% consensus" isn't portrayed as what it really is.

Activists don't understand that climate change is a postmodern scientific field (ie it's new and just trying to gain its bearings) so it should in principle be more reserved in its entry to the mainstream until it can build some street cred.

Activists don't understand that earth's climate represents one of the most complex systems known to man, which only exacerbates the problems I mentioned earlier about major unsolved problems in fluid mechanics and stochastic behaviors of most of the largest climate-driving forces.

 

The 97% consensus is among the scientific community. You know, people with accolades not casual commentators like you. 

Green energy and carbon taxes do work. Explain why they are trash?

Postmodern scientific field? You don't know what that means. Don't use words you don't understand. The reason why it doesn't have 'street cred' is because street morons such as yourself have been fed corporate propaganda.

Yes the earth is complicated, no the solutions are actually very simple.

 

You actually haven't brought any arguments to the table.

 

You have shit on policies known to work without an argument.

You called science 'postmodern'? Can you not?

No one cares about the opinions of people on the street. We care about the facts.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Where I begin to part ways:

The climate always changes (I say this not because it's disputed by anyone, but because it calls into question the suspicious use of "climate change" as a name after "global warming" failed).

Our equations in fluid mechanics fail us when turbulence occurs due to the Navier-Stokes smoothness and existence problem, which is an issue because climate modeling requires fluid mechanics to describe the behavior of the atmosphere and turbulence is extremely commonplace (this is a pretty big deal for the reliability of climate model predictions, hence why I had asked about modeling earlier).

Cloud, ocean, volcanic, and solar behavior are all insanely difficult to model because there are stochastic properties in all of them (random properties can't be modeled, for obvious reasons).

The earth has been getting greener recently because optimal CO2 concentration for plants is around 1000 ppm, at 400 ppm they grow much slower.

I don't think the evidence is good that CO2 drives temperature on the earth because it's all proxy data and modeling.

If I make a climate model and I use it to predict what the global average temperature will be in 100 years, I have no way to test my prediction, so I'm not doing science at that point because I'm making untestable predictions (unless I want to wait 100 years for a meaningless answer).

There are good reasons to believe a solar grand minimum is imminent, as they occur on average every 400 years and the last one was at the end of the 16th century.

 

 

Climate change and global warming are both interchangable terms that don't point to some conspiracy among climate scientists. Grow up.

 

You like to talk about other shit like volcanoes and the sun as not being part of scientists models. Yes they are part of the models. Do you see any major volcanic activity occurring since the industrial revolution??? No.

 

Is it the sun???

 

No the sun is cooling.

 

Your arguments are so hilariously corporate-based and scripted. Do I need to go on?

 

More CO2 means more plants? You do realise trees need more than just CO2 to live right? Heard of water?

 

And you keep babbling on about the sun. It's getting cooler dude. 

 

Fucking Trumptards I swear to god.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know how much CO2 is released due to tectonic plate shifts/subduction zones vs CO2 created by humans?

 

I heard somewhere that the 10 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 emissions than every automobile on earth combined... I thought that was neat.

 

I also heard that wildfires produce as much CO2 as cars. I wonder how much CO2 those forest fires in California produced. What's their fucking problem, why don't they prevent them? What about when Indonesia went up in smoke in 1997? That had to have been a metric fuck ton. Good thing we have fire fighters. I wonder how much C02 was released into the atmosphere from wild fires before there were fire fighters to put them out...

You heard something? You really think millions of cars everyday pumping co2 in the air is less than 10 shipping tankers? Are u sure ur brain isn’t fully co2 because it’s prob hot air tbh

Share this post


Link to post

This is what happens when corporations lobby to defund schooling. You get drones like this.

 

The next generation of kids are going to get their education from Youtube and Prager University lmfao

Share this post


Link to post

This is what happens when corporations lobby to defund schooling. You get drones like this.

 

The next generation of kids are going to get their education from Youtube and Prager University lmfao

Australia is definitely the beacon of thought and culture.

 

If I paused for a minute to really, REALLY ponder where a majority of the worlds technological advancements came from, it would definitely be the prison island of Australia.

Share this post


Link to post

Australia is definitely the beacon of thought and culture.

 

If I paused for a minute to really, REALLY ponder where a majority of the worlds technological advancements came from, it would definitely be the prison island of Australia.

Australia isn't immune to right wing shit heads either as per the last 20 years of science defunding.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.