Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, akaWest said:

Didn't Dan Rather get blacklisted from the legacy media for peddling fake news? 

Don't know him, or anything about his past. Either way that's irrelevant because this specific tweet just as RVG said points out how much of a moron he is when it comes to science.

You could also have this same tweet and say a 72 year old man believes in a magical sky father.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, legendaryshotz said:

Don't know him, or anything about his past. Either way that's irrelevant because this specific tweet just as RVG said points out how much of a moron he is when it comes to science.

You could also have this same tweet and say a 72 year old man believes in a magical sky father.

I was talkin about the tweeter, not the tweetee.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

Good, we need some tarrifs. We should be ripping everyone else off, not the other way around lol.

tarrifs are literal taxes, it bumps up the price of goods.

 

when you trade internationally. An external deficit (importing more than exports) means you are receiving more tangible goods from others than you are exporting. You are receiving tangible goods in exchange for currency. 

A trade surplus means you are exporting more products away than you are receiving and exchanging it for currency.

 

Tariffs have a purpose when one country dominates a market share too much which creates a dependence which means leverage.

For example a nation who solely produces for example window curtains in exchange for food is not going to do well if the food trading nation stops trading lol. (This actually happens in Africa btw, it's illegal under international trade law)

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

 

You could also have this same tweet and say a 72 year old man believes in a magical sky father.

1

Chill out edge lord, this is just a Halo forum. No need for such deep philosophical OWNAGE.   

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

That just shows this guy's ignorance about science more than anything.

Let's not get carried away. 

"Knowing science" doesn't mean never taking a stance on anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

huh

 

2 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Let's not get carried away. 

"Knowing science" doesn't mean never taking a stance on anything. 

"Believe in climate change" isn't a statement that makes sense in a scientific context. I've never sat down in a lab and had conversations over which theories we should believe in and which ones we shouldn't before beginning an experiment. Theories describe reality to a strong degree or they don't, and your belief in them doesn't change how well they work. Climate change (the AGW kind) is still a hypothesis and doesn't have good evidence to support alarmist conclusions at the moment. Belittling someone because they don't "believe" in climate change is not only not supported by evidence, it's scientifically ignorant.

8 hours ago, Niku said:

tarrifs are literal taxes, it bumps up the price of goods.

 

when you trade internationally. An external deficit (importing more than exports) means you are receiving more tangible goods from others than you are exporting. You are receiving tangible goods in exchange for currency. 

A trade surplus means you are exporting more products away than you are receiving and exchanging it for currency.

 

Tariffs have a purpose when one country dominates a market share too much which creates a dependence which means leverage.

For example a nation who solely produces for example window curtains in exchange for food is not going to do well if the food trading nation stops trading lol. (This actually happens in Africa btw, it's illegal under international trade law)

Yeah, and the US has been getting ripped off, so we are now using tariffs to structure better trade deals with other countries. It's a tool that gives leverage to enable renegotiation. Also, it's working:

 

http://archive.is/452o4

The US threatened tariffs on China, China conceded.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/trump-we-hope-to-work-something-out-on-a-fair-trade-deal-with-europe.html

The US threatened tariffs on Europe, Europe conceded.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, RVG E Nomini said:

 

"Believe in climate change" isn't a statement that makes sense in a scientific context. I've never sat down in a lab and had conversations over which theories we should believe in and which ones we shouldn't before beginning an experiment. Theories describe reality to a strong degree or they don't, and your belief in them doesn't change how well they work. Climate change (the AGW kind) is still a hypothesis and doesn't have good evidence to support alarmist conclusions at the moment. Belittling someone because they don't "believe" in climate change is not only not supported by evidence, it's scientifically ignorant.

Yeah, and the US has been getting ripped off, so we are now using tariffs to structure better trade deals with other countries. It's a tool that gives leverage to enable renegotiation. Also, it's working:

 

http://archive.is/452o4

The US threatened tariffs on China, China conceded.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/trump-we-hope-to-work-something-out-on-a-fair-trade-deal-with-europe.html

The US threatened tariffs on Europe, Europe conceded.

Poor choice of words I agree, shouldn't have used the term "belief" when it comes to climate change. It's closer to gravity on the science scale than santa claus.

But you're not getting off the hook either, just because something isn't a 100% clear cut theory like gravity is doesn't mean you can muddy the waters for your own damn liking, like you have been for the past few pages. Black holes aren't being experimented on for obvious reasons however through mathematical equations we figured out what they do. You wouldnt sit there in a lab either and tell your classmates that black holes don't break down atoms to their most molecular level because we haven't tested black holes. Theres so much indirect evidence that we essentially figured it out, same principle applies to climate change. We know what CO2 does, we know many other variables and what they contribute to overall climate patterns. Few mathematical equations later and it doesn't look great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RVG E Nomini said:

"Believe in climate change" isn't a statement that makes sense in a scientific context. I've never sat down in a lab and had conversations over which theories we should believe in and which ones we shouldn't before beginning an experiment. Theories describe reality to a strong degree or they don't, and your belief in them doesn't change how well they work. Climate change (the AGW kind) is still a hypothesis and doesn't have good evidence to support alarmist conclusions at the moment. Belittling someone because they don't "believe" in climate change is not only not supported by evidence, it's scientifically ignorant.

The ice core studies done on the matter are, as far as any lay person is concerned and according to many in the field, nothing if not rigorous and mutually affirmative. To say it doesn't have "good" evidence is simply a lie. It may not be gravity, but it's pretty damn convincing. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

Poor choice of words I agree, shouldn't have used the term "belief" when it comes to climate change. It's closer to gravity on the science scale than santa claus.

But you're not getting off the hook either, just because something isn't a 100% clear cut theory like gravity is doesn't mean you can muddy the waters for your own damn liking, like you have been for the past few pages. Black holes aren't being experimented on for obvious reasons however through mathematical equations we figured out what they do. You wouldnt sit there in a lab either and tell your classmates that black holes don't break down atoms to their most molecular level because we haven't tested black holes. Theres so much indirect evidence that we essentially figured it out, same principle applies to climate change. We know what CO2 does, we know many other variables and what they contribute to overall climate patterns. Few mathematical equations later and it doesn't look great.

 

Gravity isn't a clear cut theory and climate is vastly more complex than gravity. While we know a lot about what CO2 does on its own, we don't know its significance in terms of climate. It's also doubtful we know all the variables that influence climate and even if we did, we can't model them all because some of them are stochastic. Black holes are trivial at this point to observe indirectly using stars orbiting them, gravitational lensing, and gravitational waves. This is despite the fact that our mathematical equations describing them break down and start spitting out infinities, meaning that our current physics isn't complete. Having equations in place doesn't mean the work is done whatsoever, so that shouldn't be the pillar of your argument.

1 hour ago, Cursed Lemon said:

The ice core studies done on the matter are, as far as any lay person is concerned and according to many in the field, nothing if not rigorous and mutually affirmative. To say it doesn't have "good" evidence is simply a lie. It may not be gravity, but it's pretty damn convincing. 

It's not a lie, lol. That's one set of ice core studies in one location, that conflicts with many other ice core studies done in other locations. Plus it's based on proxy data which is hardly reliable enough to settle the matter completely. Ice core records like Vostok also show the earth to be warmer despite lower CO2 levels than present today. They also only show surface temperature, not middle troposphere which is what CO2 heats up the most.

What you should concern yourself with is climate sensitivity to CO2, we don't know the exact number (if there is one), but climate models typically set it at 2-4 degrees C. When you look at observed temperature vs climate model predictions over the years, the sensitivity just doesn't look that high (more likely around 1 degree C) because observed temperature is still on the low end of the model projections. This is all a wash to me the because it makes nearly no sense for climate to be defined by global mean temperature (one number) and for it to be controlled by just one number, atmospheric CO2 concentration. The system is too complicated for that to be a good distillation of how it works. I'd love to talk about the different factors because it's fascinating. My only real opinion is it's too early to conclude that CO2 will cause catastrophe to the planet.

Share this post


Link to post

Ha. Hahahahaha. You’re right it’s not a theory. It’s a law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Also you cannot use unknowns to disprove or be a super skeptic of the current status of climate change. From a logical standpoint it’s just as likely that these “unknowns” can cause an even more bad outcome vs a not so bad outcome. Because, you don’t fucking know what those variables would do. And even if you did it isn’t going to flip models upside down I can guarantee you that.

Your second argument is literally god of gaps argument except in denialism form. We don’t know, it’s too complex, therefore you deny deny deny. We do know what CO2 does to atomospheres, it heats them and traps heat. Go look at Venus with its 96.2% CO2 atmosphere and see when the greenhouse effect goes wild. Heat has a very hard time escaping there. It’s a fundamental trait of that molecule combo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, legendaryshotz said:

Ha. Hahahahaha. You’re right it’s not a theory. It’s a law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Also you cannot use unknowns to disprove or be a super skeptic of the current status of climate change. From a logical standpoint it’s just as likely that these “unknowns” can cause an even more bad outcome vs a not so bad outcome. Because, you don’t fucking know what those variables would do. And even if you did it isn’t going to flip models upside down I can guarantee you that.

Your second argument is literally god of gaps argument except in denialism form. We don’t know, it’s too complex, therefore you deny deny deny. We do know what CO2 does to atomospheres, it heats them and traps heat. Go look at Venus with its 96.2% CO2 atmosphere and see when the greenhouse effect goes wild. Heat has a very hard time escaping there. It’s a fundamental trait of that molecule combo.

 

Gravitation is a theory. It is a model that explains a vast body of data and is falsifiable. I'm saying it isn't clear cut because it breaks down, such as when describing the behavior of black holes. Singularities are artifacts of the theory, not physical realities.

I didn't say unknowns disprove anything, I said we likely don't know them all and that some of the ones we do are stochastic. I didn't say it would flip the models lol. Please address the things I actually say bud.

As for complexity, I've already discussed the navier-stokes equations we can't solve with regards to turbulence, which is a common phenomenon in our atmosphere and oceans. Also clouds are extremely difficult to model. You gonna tell me you're 100% confident in conclusions that roughly approximate clouds and completely ignore turbulence? Sure, CO2 can trap heat, but our system isn't that simple where that's the only thing controlling heat content in the atmosphere. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere. I'm positive you already know that, though. Also, runaway greenhouse is a hypothesis for what happened to venus, not an observed fact.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

 

"Believe in climate change" isn't a statement that makes sense in a scientific context. I've never sat down in a lab and had conversations over which theories we should believe in and which ones we shouldn't before beginning an experiment. Theories describe reality to a strong degree or they don't, and your belief in them doesn't change how well they work. Climate change (the AGW kind) is still a hypothesis and doesn't have good evidence to support alarmist conclusions at the moment. Belittling someone because they don't "believe" in climate change is not only not supported by evidence, it's scientifically ignorant.

Yeah, and the US has been getting ripped off, so we are now using tariffs to structure better trade deals with other countries. It's a tool that gives leverage to enable renegotiation. Also, it's working:

 

http://archive.is/452o4

The US threatened tariffs on China, China conceded.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/trump-we-hope-to-work-something-out-on-a-fair-trade-deal-with-europe.html

The US threatened tariffs on Europe, Europe conceded.

Did you actually read anything that I just posted? Tariffs are inflationary. You are paying more money out of your pay packet for the same product to be assembled and built in America instead of China or the EU or w/e.

 

Furthermore why do you care about wanting to send more products out of the US than you receive? Why would you raise the cost of shit for this? lmao

 

It is a literal tax. The only people getting ripped off is you. You're literally punching yourself in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

Gravitation is a theory. It is a model that explains a vast body of data and is falsifiable. I'm saying it isn't clear cut because it breaks down, such as when describing the behavior of black holes. Singularities are artifacts of the theory, not physical realities.

I didn't say unknowns disprove anything, I said we likely don't know them all and that some of the ones we do are stochastic. I didn't say it would flip the models lol. Please address the things I actually say bud.

As for complexity, I've already discussed the navier-stokes equations we can't solve with regards to turbulence, which is a common phenomenon in our atmosphere and oceans. Also clouds are extremely difficult to model. You gonna tell me you're 100% confident in conclusions that roughly approximate clouds and completely ignore turbulence? Sure, CO2 can trap heat, but our system isn't that simple where that's the only thing controlling heat content in the atmosphere. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere. I'm positive you already know that, though. Also, runaway greenhouse is a hypothesis for what happened to venus, not an observed fact.

It’s only coincidence I guess that the  energy of every atmosphere ever that  is higher also contains elevated or more levels of CO2. Saying it’s a trace gas doesn’t mean shit. Saying clouds are hard again doesn’t mean shit. You just keep pointing to random variables and hope it sticks. No scientist would agree with your downplaying of key variables vs other variables that honestly don’t mean much such as cloud patterns. Because they can estimate to a pretty good degree on how much they impact the climate anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Niku said:

Did you actually read anything that I just posted? Tariffs are inflationary. You are paying more money out of your pay packet for the same product to be assembled and built in America instead of China or the EU or w/e.

 

Furthermore why do you care about wanting to send more products out of the US than you receive? Why would you raise the cost of shit for this? lmao

 

It is a literal tax. The only people getting ripped off is you. You're literally punching yourself in the face.

Yeah, did you read what I posted? The tariffs were dropped because better trade deals were made. They're a tool, not some end goal.

13 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

It’s only coincidence I guess that the  energy of every atmosphere ever that  is higher also contains elevated or more levels of CO2. Saying it’s a trace gas doesn’t mean shit. Saying clouds are hard again doesn’t mean shit. You just keep pointing to random variables and hope it sticks. No scientist would agree with your downplaying of key variables vs other variables that honestly don’t mean much such as cloud patterns. Because they can estimate to a pretty good degree on how much they impact the climate anyway.

That's a hell of a correlation given a sample size of one solar system lol. Is it coincidence that the atmosphere of venus is so hot when it has such a high pressure (about 90 times greater than earth's), when temperature scales with pressure according to every gas law ever devised that relates both terms (gay-lussac, ideal gas law, van der waal, etc)?

Earth's CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and you're trying to act like you know that if that went up to 95%, Earth would be like Venus. That isn't confirmed. It's a hypothesis.

Clouds are one of the more critical components because they reflect sunlight back into space. There is a phenomenon with some evidence where tropical water warming reduces the amount of cirrus clouds above, releasing more infrared radiation into space (iris effect). Models don't account for that, they just try to average yearly cloud cover at a resolution no smaller than a square kilometer. It's pretty significant approximation if you ask me.

Your last sentence is indicative of blind trust to me, sorry but that's not something I'm good at doing. You'd do better if you stopped acting like I'm at the extreme other end of the spectrum on this issue. I'm not. I'm somewhere in the center. The things I worry about are probably things you should worry about because they are important for the picture as a whole. I've said it before, the earth has gotten warmer, CO2 has increased in our atmosphere, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Those are basic facts. The issue is when people tell me they know what's going to happen 50 years into the future and they know that humans are solely responsible, that's an irresponsible position based on the strength of the evidence. It's usually based on climate models which don't count as evidence because they aren't experiments or observations, they are predictions. That seems lost on people and that's kind of wild to me. I'm allowed to ask questions and think for myself but you are keen on belittling my position more than you are in engaging the scientific material. It's disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post

0.8% BAC makes you legally drunk. I dont understand your idea that small amounts cant make big changes to the climate. My last sentence isn't "blind faith", its the notion that scientists already take into account your stupid nuances that you love to focus on. Not to an absolute exact degree, but I'm pretty sure they're not just throwing darts and picking random numbers. They're all based on pretty close numbers that as accurately as they can resemble reality.

And oh please tell me how irresponsible a postion it is to take of our planet being absolutely fucked and wanting to do something about it is a bad one... You think fossil fuels last forever? You don't think renewables are the way to go? Looking into the future and trying to predict the absolute best you can to avoid disaster is the responsible way. We're already experiencing some effects of climate change today and it's already pretty scary. 

Also, up to 80% of the suns rays go through clouds just FYI, in the form of radiant rays. As for your earth 95% CO2 hypothesis nonsense we'd be all dead and there would be no life. Guarenteed. Fill up any box with 95% CO2 and nothing survives. And it becomes hot as hell.

Lastly taking a central stance on climate change is probably just as stupid as someone taking a central stance on vaccines. When one side is finding evidence that is clearly pointing one direction and another side are bible thumping idiots who absolutely do not give a shit at all what happens and deny nonstop due to sheer ignorance being in the middle of that whole fiesta is not great bob. As the years go on and tech gets better either we're going to fix this CO2 problem and climate may go back to some sort of normalcy or it'l just be even more of a confirmation that we are fucked and that resources are going to become much more scarce, for a population of people that is going to be much greater than today.

 

So whats the worst case scenario of me being somehow wrong 50 years from now...oh shit economy probably not as good (or maybe it could be with the jobs generated from building a green infrastructure) but hey we have renewable energy for years on end and not heavily reliant on a finite resource that would run out...in about...50 years...from today...irresponsible take my ass on all levels.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Climate change is will be good for the Earth, a cleansing if you will. Drastic disasters will happen and billions will die. That will solve the overpopulation crisis, which is the root cause of global warming/climate change. Maybe then, we can finally limit child birth to prevent future  human overpopulation. People that act as if renewable energy is going to somehow subsidize the carbon footprint of a growing human population are a joke. Stop acting as if you're a Brainiac when you can't even think big picture. Again, it's not that people consume too much(although some do), it's that there are too many consumers. 

Share this post


Link to post

It's official (for the n'th time), America voted in a fucking r*tard. 

Quote

Trump Accidentally Exposes the Location, Identities of U.S. Navy Seal Team 5 on Twitter

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-exposes-location-identities-of-navy-seals-in-iraq.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR0fRdtSzx_L09GxrgpIX_zPGLdR9P1xU-7a28kmjvk-XUBuYRJx3di6Zhk

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

0.8% BAC makes you legally drunk. I dont understand your idea that small amounts cant make big changes to the climate. My last sentence isn't "blind faith", its the notion that scientists already take into account your stupid nuances that you love to focus on. Not to an absolute exact degree, but I'm pretty sure they're not just throwing darts and picking random numbers. They're all based on pretty close numbers that as accurately as they can resemble reality.

And oh please tell me how irresponsible a postion it is to take of our planet being absolutely fucked and wanting to do something about it is a bad one... You think fossil fuels last forever? You don't think renewables are the way to go? Looking into the future and trying to predict the absolute best you can to avoid disaster is the responsible way. We're already experiencing some effects of climate change today and it's already pretty scary. 

Also, up to 80% of the suns rays go through clouds just FYI, in the form of radiant rays. As for your earth 95% CO2 hypothesis nonsense we'd be all dead and there would be no life. Guarenteed. Fill up any box with 95% CO2 and nothing survives. And it becomes hot as hell.

Lastly taking a central stance on climate change is probably just as stupid as someone taking a central stance on vaccines. When one side is finding evidence that is clearly pointing one direction and another side are bible thumping idiots who absolutely do not give a shit at all what happens and deny nonstop due to sheer ignorance being in the middle of that whole fiesta is not great bob. As the years go on and tech gets better either we're going to fix this CO2 problem and climate may go back to some sort of normalcy or it'l just be even more of a confirmation that we are fucked and that resources are going to become much more scarce, for a population of people that is going to be much greater than today.

 

So whats the worst case scenario of me being somehow wrong 50 years from now...oh shit economy probably not as good (or maybe it could be with the jobs generated from building a green infrastructure) but hey we have renewable energy for years on end and not heavily reliant on a finite resource that would run out...in about...50 years...from today...irresponsible take my ass on all levels.

There's no evidence a small amount of CO2 will make a drastic difference on our climate. The temperature certainly isn't following CO2 concentration right now because there are a lot of different things going on. It'll take a lot to convince me that CO2 is the control knob. You're responding with more blind faith saying you're sure scientists are taking every nuance into account as accurately as they can to resemble reality. So, if you're sure they're doing that, you're sure they're getting the correct answers with their predictions, right? The only real difference between you and me is I don't think there's good reason to think their predictions are accurate.

The position I mentioned is scientifically irresponsible because the response isn't in proportion with the evidence. Our planet isn't fucked lol, that's crazy talk. I didn't say renewables aren't the way to go, I said that green energy sucks. Hydro is a good renewable but it isn't green. Fission is great but it's not renewable and arguably not green. Wind and solar are godawful for replacing oil and powering our entire civilization. That's just the way it is, man. It doesn't matter how lofty you feel about saving the earth. It's unfortunate that fission is very expensive because developing countries will prefer fossil fuels for their price and easy of use. If you want to prevent nations from developing then you make fossil fuels more expensive, which is probably one of your first solutions to your perceived CO2 problem. If you're one of the types that wants a global government then you should change up your strategy because I don't think a global government can operate spaceship earth until a decent majority of the countries under it are modernized. This may feel like a random segue but it's completely dependent on the policies of today.

Which scary effects of climate change are we experiencing today?

Hypothesis nonsense? Runaway greenhouse is a hypothesis of what happened to Venus. We don't know how Venus' atmosphere evolved. I never said it would be good for earth to have 96% CO2, not sure where you got that from. Yeah I agree it would get hotter. Agreement is meaningless though without a way to quantify the magnitude of that heat increase.

Vaccines work in practice within hours, climate change is a 50 year out prediction of alarm that can't be tested through experiment. They aren't exactly comparable. A centrist position on this issue is agreement that CO2 increases temperature but disagreement that it increases temperature at a rate we need to be alarmed about. Calling me a denier is dumb, I haven't denied anything. What is your definition of a normal climate?

Worst case scenario? I don't know. Am I somehow immoral because I'm not fully convinced by your climate predictions? That's a bit of a stretch lol. Do I think renewables should be thrown out? No. I think they need a lot more work to become viable replacements of fossil fuels. Do I think fossil fuels are infinite? No. I think we should be like France and rely more on nuclear to make fossil fuels last longer. It's hard to predict how long they'll last because technology changes, but if 50 years is it then there are going to be some really fucked countries. I have my doubts because we're always 50 years from running out, 50 years from apocalypse, 50 years from fusion, etc etc. These things are too hard to know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

It's not a lie, lol. That's one set of ice core studies in one location, that conflicts with many other ice core studies done in other locations. Plus it's based on proxy data which is hardly reliable enough to settle the matter completely. Ice core records like Vostok also show the earth to be warmer despite lower CO2 levels than present today.

The Dome C and Vostok studies of CO2 are in perfect alignment. 

air_bubbles_historical.jpg

vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg

And then there's Law Dome. 

003.jpg

Quote

They also only show surface temperature, not middle troposphere which is what CO2 heats up the most.

There's literally no way of knowing that information. 

Quote

What you should concern yourself with is climate sensitivity to CO2, we don't know the exact number (if there is one), but climate models typically set it at 2-4 degrees C. When you look at observed temperature vs climate model predictions over the years, the sensitivity just doesn't look that high (more likely around 1 degree C) because observed temperature is still on the low end of the model projections.

The Earth normally takes millennia to heat up, not a hundred years. I don't know how much more sensitive it can get than that. The weatherman can be wrong about it raining today, that doesn't mean meteorology has failed us as a science. It also makes less than no sense to assert this because you are now completely at a loss as to explaining past climate changes, because as far as we're aware the Earth is less sensitive to other forms of climate influence (e.g. solar events, volcanic eruptions) than it is to CO2. There would literally have to be a massive asteroid impact at every single regular interval to explain the climate data we have. 

Quote

This is all a wash to me the because it makes nearly no sense for climate to be defined by global mean temperature (one number) and for it to be controlled by just one number, atmospheric CO2 concentration.

No one has ever insinuated that the climate is (normally) exclusively controlled by CO2. But this is like saying that no one can possibly die of ingesting poison because there are just "too many other things going on in the body metabolically for that one thing to have such a dramatic impact". As it turns out, if you drink enough water, you die - it's a lot, but you can do it. Just like it takes a lot of CO2 to make a difference, but we're trying our damn hardest. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

1078139020218191872Why do you post this sensationalist crap? You spend way too much time in r/worldnews and r/politics. You should hit up David Brock, I'm sure he'd pay you to post in this forum.

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 & Privacy Policy.