Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

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.

What do the 97% actually agree on? I'm pretty sure the "We're not sure if humans are the cause for climate change but we're not gonna rule it out" crowd makes up a substantial amount of that 97%. Maybe you should look into it.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

What do the 97% actually agree on? I'm pretty sure the "We're not sure if humans are the cause for climate change but we're not gonna rule it out" crowd makes up a substantial amount of that 97%. Maybe you should look into it.

Yeah you are wrong. Maybe look up the facts before parroting Republican party bullshit and Koch industries funded propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Lol, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html I thinks it's just emissions/pollution in general. Nox/Sox are the big ones... One large tanker is equal to 50 million cars.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah you are wrong. Maybe look up the facts before parroting Republican party bullshit and Koch industries funded propaganda.

Ok then, what exactly do 97% of scientist agree on?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok then, what exactly do 97% of scientist agree on?

Climate change is driven by human activity.

Share this post


Link to post

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

So pretty much 97.1% of 32.6% of 11,944 Scientist/abstracts agree that humans are causing global warming....err climate change?

 

Is this what you're referring to? If so then 31.6% of Scientist agree would be the proper #

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

So pretty much 97.1% of 32.6% of 11,944 Scientist/abstracts agree that humans are causing global warming....err climate change?

 

Is this what you're referring to? If so then 31.6% of Scientist agree would be the proper #

 

Did you actually read the shit you are linking or are you that stupid that you are scoring own goals?

 

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'

Share this post


Link to post

This report Aka West linked to show that there is no consensus, actually proved that the consensus is 97%

 

This is consistent with pretty much every report that analyses the content of climate science reports:

 

studies_consensus.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Aka West Aka conservatives still can't fucking read, stay in school kids or you will end up like this:

 

1*4sFXfhC8FLvpBXdJ5yhHlg.png

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

My admittedly scientifically illiterate takeaway from your post (but hey everyone else in this thread is blatantly speaking out their ass so might as well be afforded some leeway here) is you're saying we don't know exactly what the results of our impacts on the climate will be, so we shouldn't care.  I don't think that logic follows.

 

Like we should keep poking the hornets nest because we don't know with 100% certainty whether or not it even contains hornets, exactly how many will come out, exactly when they will come out, or exactly what parts of our bodies they will sting.  No we don't know those things, but we know enough to establish a direct causal relationship between poking hornet nests and getting stung, do we not?  We know that introducing Co2 in the atmosphere causes heat to become "trapped", and we know there's at the very least a strong correlation between rising temperatures, stronger storms, and increase in industrialization.  We don't know if plants are enough to off-set what we're producing or if it will *actually* have any impact on storm strength and weather patterns but why just baselessly assume the ideal scenario?

 

"Anyone who questions scientific consensus is labeled a far right wingnut".  Because that's usually exactly what it is.  Questioning scientific consensus when you possess contrarian evidence that disproves it is a valid and necessary part of the scientific process.  But usually it's just concern trolls without evidence who question things only to push their own stupid ideologies that they never bother to apply the same line of scientific questioning to.  Can't tell me as a scientist you don't see the constantly encroaching threat of pseudoscience?  You'll forgive me if I'm constantly on-guard for that shit.

 

There are reasons beyond climate change to pursue green energy.  No pointless foreign conflicts over dwindling resources.  Resources that run out after billions of years instead of a few centuries.  Not dying from smog.   So on. It might not be economically feasible in the short term, but no scientific progress would ever be achieved if you fell back on that argument for everything.  Same with stupid zero-sum arguments like "BUT CHINA"  Playing a role in slowing the process down is still better than letting it continue on like normal.

Share this post


Link to post

RIP GHWB, I guess. Not a bad President.

actually a bad president.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This report Aka West linked to show that there is no consensus, actually proved that the consensus is 97%

 

This is consistent with pretty much every report that analyses the content of climate science reports:

 

studies_consensus.jpg

All these studies say "global warming" yet you say "climate change". Why is that?

 

 

What about these Scientists, do they factor into the 97% consensus? http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Share this post


Link to post

"BUT CHINA" Playing a role in slowing the process down is still better than letting it continue on like normal.

China produces twice the amount of C02 that the US does and is responsible for roughly 30% of the world's C02 emissions. And there is no sign that it's going down. I'm with you on pursuing clean energy. However I think we should nuke China if we have any chance of surviving.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Yeah there's no real good way to go about it, the US needs its middle class back, they've been getting driven into the ground for years. Musk is doing god's work.

 

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.

 

I didn't analyze anything in that post, I speculated on some stuff. Tell me more about these CO2 experiments if you don't mind.

 

Climate modeling isn't worthless and shouldn't be discarded, stop putting words in my mouth bud.

 

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

 

Climate change isn't fake. Stop putting words in my mouth bud.

 

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.

 

I wasn't making any arguments, I was stating my views on climate change. Are you really having this hard of a time following my posts?

 

There was no poll of 100% of the scientific community, no scientists I know were polled about it. If you believe 97% of all scientists agree on climate change, then show my your work by citing your source and explaining how the methodology of that work is sound. You can move your goalposts later and claim 97% of all climate scientists agree, but then you lose the power of any overwhelming consensus and you're also responsible to cite your work while explaining how the methodology of that is sound.

 

Carbon tax is a bad solution because it can't be enforced globally. You can't solve global problems without global solutions. A US carbon tax would likely drive companies out of the US, which is antithetical to rebuilding our current economy. We also need to rebuild the middle class here because they've been leaned on too heavily.

 

Green energy is a bad solution because green energy is wind and solar power; it isn't always windy and it isn't always sunny. See what happened in Germany with 'Energiewende'. Wind power takes enormous amounts of grease to keep turbines spinning. The grease then gets combusted by the friction which creates CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases. That grease also gets transported by truck and pickup to each site, which burns gasoline. Solar power only works for half a day and we don't have the battery tech to store enough energy to alleviate a planet's worth of energy needs that are currently reliant on fossil fuel. You wanna build batteries for the planet? You'll need a lot of lithium which means you gotta tear up a LOT of earth with machines that burn diesel. Green energy requires huge expenditures of energy and destruction of natural environments. Wanna talk about all the animals killed by turbines and solar towers? What it comes down to is your standards for what you're willing to sacrifice to achieve your goals.

 

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.

 

You're a very poor reader.

 

I never said the sun, ocean, clouds, and volcanoes aren't in climate models, I said their behaviors can't be modeled completely. Stochastic variables can't be put into climate models, it's impossible. Also, there's lots of underwater volcanic activity so don't discount that just because you haven't heard of any major eruptions on land recently.

 

Yes the sun is behaving in an interesting way, I suspect we're approaching another grand minimum like the Maunder minimum that happened at the end of the 16th century. This is because proxy data from tree rings and ice showed 27 grand minima in the last 11,000 years, which averages to one every 400 years or so, so we're due for another.

 

Oh yeah, global warming and climate change aren't interchangeable, the former is about surface temperature increase due to greenhouse gases, the later is about long-term change to the climate. Should I quote NASA for you?

 

Plants need water? Insightful.

 

You keep talking about corporate scripts and trumptards, yet act like I'm the drone in this conversation when you're the one going all NPC over this. You're also obsessed with credentials, I know some highly respected scientists who disagree on some aspects of climate change (this should be no surprise that a variety of people yields a variety of thoughts and opinions). Remember when I told you there are no authorities in science? If I had a nobel prize in physics would that suddenly make my posts correct to you? Start thinking for yourself, homie.

 

 

 

 

EDIT - Ramirez, I'll have to get back to you later today, sry.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

RIP GHWB, I guess. Not a bad President.

definitely a one term president but he was maybe the best one in that category.

Share this post


Link to post

China produces twice the amount of C02 that the US does and is responsible for roughly 30% of the world's C02 emissions. And there is no sign that it's going down. I'm with you on pursuing clean energy. However I think we should nuke China if we have any chance of surviving.

And who’s buying all them Chinese goods being produced

Share this post


Link to post

@RVG My bad. But how you phrased your other posts on climate models sounded really like you were more for them being against climate change due to the incompleteness

Share this post


Link to post

Look how upset the little guy gets.  It must be hard.

Must be hard living in the richest country in the world and having the political capital of a third world kleptocracy to think I'm upset at your pathetic mental state.

 

America is nobbled when people like you have more of a democratic weighting than actually informed citizenry.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah there's no real good way to go about it, the US needs its middle class back, they've been getting driven into the ground for years. Musk is doing god's work.

 

 

I didn't analyze anything in that post, I speculated on some stuff. Tell me more about these CO2 experiments if you don't mind.

 

Climate modeling isn't worthless and shouldn't be discarded, stop putting words in my mouth bud.

 

 

Climate change isn't fake. Stop putting words in my mouth bud.

 

 

I wasn't making any arguments, I was stating my views on climate change. Are you really having this hard of a time following my posts?

 

There was no poll of 100% of the scientific community, no scientists I know were polled about it. If you believe 97% of all scientists agree on climate change, then show my your work by citing your source and explaining how the methodology of that work is sound. You can move your goalposts later and claim 97% of all climate scientists agree, but then you lose the power of any overwhelming consensus and you're also responsible to cite your work while explaining how the methodology of that is sound.

 

Carbon tax is a bad solution because it can't be enforced globally. You can't solve global problems without global solutions. A US carbon tax would likely drive companies out of the US, which is antithetical to rebuilding our current economy. We also need to rebuild the middle class here because they've been leaned on too heavily.

 

Green energy is a bad solution because green energy is wind and solar power; it isn't always windy and it isn't always sunny. See what happened in Germany with 'Energiewende'. Wind power takes enormous amounts of grease to keep turbines spinning. The grease then gets combusted by the friction which creates CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases. That grease also gets transported by truck and pickup to each site, which burns gasoline. Solar power only works for half a day and we don't have the battery tech to store enough energy to alleviate a planet's worth of energy needs that are currently reliant on fossil fuel. You wanna build batteries for the planet? You'll need a lot of lithium which means you gotta tear up a LOT of earth with machines that burn diesel. Green energy requires huge expenditures of energy and destruction of natural environments. Wanna talk about all the animals killed by turbines and solar towers? What it comes down to is your standards for what you're willing to sacrifice to achieve your goals.

 

 

You're a very poor reader.

 

I never said the sun, ocean, clouds, and volcanoes aren't in climate models, I said their behaviors can't be modeled completely. Stochastic variables can't be put into climate models, it's impossible. Also, there's lots of underwater volcanic activity so don't discount that just because you haven't heard of any major eruptions on land recently.

 

Yes the sun is behaving in an interesting way, I suspect we're approaching another grand minimum like the Maunder minimum that happened at the end of the 16th century. This is because proxy data from tree rings and ice showed 27 grand minima in the last 11,000 years, which averages to one every 400 years or so, so we're due for another.

 

Oh yeah, global warming and climate change aren't interchangeable, the former is about surface temperature increase due to greenhouse gases, the later is about long-term change to the climate. Should I quote NASA for you?

 

Plants need water? Insightful.

 

You keep talking about corporate scripts and trumptards, yet act like I'm the drone in this conversation when you're the one going all NPC over this. You're also obsessed with credentials, I know some highly respected scientists who disagree on some aspects of climate change (this should be no surprise that a variety of people yields a variety of thoughts and opinions). Remember when I told you there are no authorities in science? If I had a nobel prize in physics would that suddenly make my posts correct to you? Start thinking for yourself, homie.

 

 

 

 

EDIT - Ramirez, I'll have to get back to you later today, sry.

You're pretending like volcanoes and clouds and the sun and shit aren't quantifiable. They are actually. Just because you're personally too stupid to understand how shit works doesn't mean it can't be 'modeled'.

 

I am not even fallaciously appealing to authorities. Your scripted 'NPC' responses that are prerecorded by Republican lobbyists, I have responded to all of them with facts and logic .

 

Renewables aren't good because it isn't always windy and it isn't always sunny? You're also citing more Koch fuelled propaganda regarding the costs and externalities of both energy options.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/renewable-energy-germany-six-months-year-solar-power-wind-farms-a8427356.html

 

Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year

 

'Renewables are bad because The WInD doEsNt Blow AlL tHe TiMe'

 

You look like a fucking moron. Quit getting your facts from billionaire Mercer funded Breitbart.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Oh yeah, global warming and climate change aren't interchangeable, the former is about surface temperature increase due to greenhouse gases, the later is about long-term change to the climate. Should I quote NASA for you?

 

Plants need water? Insightful.

 

 

Climate change and global warming are BY DEFINITION interchangeable. A globe that is warming is a changing climate. Learn English.

 

Also that propaganda that climate scientists said there was a global cooling at some point was a load of absolute bullshit. It never happened. It was fake news.

 

Plants need water. Yes. You insinuated that no one should give a shit about extra carbon in the atmosphere because 'trees eat carbon, lel'.

Increased temperature evaporates water and creates desertification across the planet, rendering equatorial regions unlivable. 

Share this post


Link to post

All these studies say "global warming" yet you say "climate change". Why is that?

 

 

What about these Scientists, do they factor into the 97% consensus? http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Again, the terms are interchangeable. 

 

Also lol, your sources are sketchy as fuck. Scored an own goal before so you gotta link a senate report.

 

A senate report haha.

 

Do you know who owns the senate you dumb fuck? The billionaires. They own the senate and they own you.

 

How does it feel to be the literal cuck of the billionaire class?

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.