Trump to Pull US out of Paris Climate Accord within Days

[Endus]

The difference is that the effects of gravity and electricity are easily observable and understood by everyone. A prediction of what some old guy in a white labcoat says will happen in 100 years is not. They are basically just saying just trust us we are smart scientists who are right, now go and lower your quality of life and use shitty products so that we can delay the inevitable just a little longer.

In my opinion if its going to happen anyway, might as well get it over with. Rip off the bandaid all at once

Then how about the fact that the Earth is (roughly) spherical, rather than flat? The average person can't see that easily. It takes an orbital viewpoint or fairly accurate measurements and knowledge of mathematics to figure it out. And yet, nobody sane disputes that the Earth is a globe. It's only nutbars who argue that it's flat, based on their willful ignorance and their refusal to consider anything but their narrow personal perspective.

And climate change denial is equally the realm of nutbars, and for the same reasons. It's rooted in nothing more than deliberate, willful ignorance.


Edit: I don't think I've linked it again in this thread yet, but here's the IPCC's latest report on the physical science behind anthropogenic climate change;*http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

If you have legitimate questions and want to see the evidence, there you go, educate yourself. If you won't, well, we're back to willful ignorance, aren't we?

[Allybeboba]

Hey hey! It's The Homer by Powell Moters.

[Zecora]

Can't say I'm surprised at more of Trump's bullshit. After all, he thinks his "alternative facts" and accusations of "false news" grants him a monopoly on truth...

[Allybeboba]

Then how about the fact that the Earth is (roughly) spherical, rather than flat? The average person can't see that easily. It takes an orbital viewpoint or fairly accurate measurements and knowledge of mathematics to figure it out. And yet, nobody sane disputes that the Earth is a globe. It's only nutbars who argue that it's flat, based on their willful ignorance and their refusal to consider anything but their narrow personal perspective.

And climate change denial is equally the realm of nutbars, and for the same reasons. It's rooted in nothing more than deliberate, willful ignorance.


Edit: I don't think I've linked it again in this thread yet, but here's the IPCC's latest report on the physical science behind anthropogenic climate change;*http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

If you have legitimate questions and want to see the evidence, there you go, educate yourself. If you won't, well, we're back to willful ignorance, aren't we?

Strange thing is up until a few years ago it was marketed as "Global Warming". Then the paid climatologists, you know, the people that get paid for this sort of thing rebranded it as "Climate Change". Why was this done?

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/artic...climate-change

Of course there is "Climate Change". To deny that would be foolish. The Earth's climate is always changing.

[Orlong]

So you only believe in things that you can see/understand? What kind of nonsense is this?

Funny how in every other circumstance besides climate change believing in things you cant see or understand would be called religion

[downnola]

And people accuse me of thinking the world is coming to an end with Trump as president. It would help their argument if he wasn't literally pushing us in that direction.

[Mekh]

Hey hey! It's The Homer by Powell Moters.

AKA the best car ever! It plays La Cucaracha!

[Deleted]

The difference is that the effects of gravity and electricity are easily observable and understood by everyone. A prediction of what some old guy in a white labcoat says will happen in 100 years is not. They are basically just saying just trust us we are smart scientists who are right, now go and lower your quality of life and use shitty products so that we can delay the inevitable just a little longer.

In my opinion if its going to happen anyway, might as well get it over with. Rip off the bandaid all at once

No, no, no. This is where you start making a fool of yourself. Gravity, described in Einstein's general relativity theory as an effect of the curvature of spacetime, is not easily observable nor is it easily understood. There's a lot more to gravity than Newton's, comparatively, simple theory.

Your own ignorance doesn't change reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how in every other circumstance besides climate change believing in things you cant see or understand would be called religion

No, your arguments are intellectually bankrupt. There's a profound difference between believing in absolute truths and believing in relative truths.

Science is based on observations, experiments, falsifiable hypotheses, questioning the status quo.

Either you're trolling or you're willfully ignorant. I don't know which one is worse, but they are both really sad.

[Dug]

Funny how in every other circumstance besides climate change believing in things you cant see or understand would be called religion

You can see the data whenever you wish as has been linked multiple times in the thread. The problem is you're choosing to not understand it.

*This is more for the rest of you deniers that follow this line of thinking. Orlong here is a lost cause I'm just piggy backing off of to make a point. Never engage this poster and save yourself the brain cells*

[Endus]

Strange thing is up until a few years ago it was marketed as "Global Warming". Then the paid climatologists, you know, the people that get paid for this sort of thing rebranded it as "Climate Change". Why was this done?

It fucking wasn't. The claim that it was is grossly and blatantly ignorant of what those terms mean.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...al-warming.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/
http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.gwvcc

"Global warming" refers to the increasing global temperature, which is still obviously a thing. It isn't "wrong" and has never dropped out of use.
"Climate change" is a broader category that includes global warming and all the secondary effects of that warming, like increased droughts, flooding, sea level rise, storm activity, changes in precipitation patterns, and so forth.

They've both been in active use simultaneously since the '60s, and there's been no change in that labelling whatsoever. It's a frankly stupid argument, and does nothing but underline exactly how little research you've bothered to do into even basic concepts.


Here, look, academic journal articles that have "global warming" right in their titles, published in 2017 (so within the last month);
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68815/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43135416308958
http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...017.00081/full

Not even close to done, just demonstrating that "global warming" is absolutely a term that's still in constant and active use. Which anyone who bothered to check would know.

[Zecora]

Funny how in every other circumstance besides climate change believing in things you cant see or understand would be called religion

If you are incapable of understanding anthropogenic climate change, that is your problem. You being incapable of grasping the theory does (fortunately) not invalidate it.

[Endus]

Funny how in every other circumstance besides climate change believing in things you cant see or understand would be called religion

You can see, and understand, this stuff.

Refusing to do so makes you willfully ignorant, it doesn't make the rest of us "religious" for recognizing that science works.

[Bloodwolf]

The difference is that the effects of gravity and electricity are easily observable and understood by everyone. A prediction of what some old guy in a white labcoat says will happen in 100 years is not. They are basically just saying just trust us we are smart scientists who are right, now go and lower your quality of life and use shitty products so that we can delay the inevitable just a little longer.

In my opinion if its going to happen anyway, might as well get it over with. Rip off the bandaid all at once

There are facts. In FACT, climate science is one of the best researched scientific topics around. But I guess you never read any scientific papers. about climate change. I always hear this ignorant "I don't believe there are enough facts". First of all you do NOT know how much facts there are. Second and most important: It's not about believing, it's about knowing to a certain extent. And this extent is above 95% significance in data, some studies even say 99%. And in science it is nearly impossible to get results like these.
Yes we should be skeptic in our lives a lot, for example I think some opinions of DJT are good, for example his stance about free trade agreements. BUT outright saying you don't think the science is good enough without checking the facts, that my friend is what is called believing. And not believing in a positive kind of manner like in god or who knows what, but being ignorant about thinks you could learn but don't want to because you could be uncomfortable about it.
And one uncomfortable thing I can say to you is that we actually CAN do something about climate change, and yes stopping to burn so much fossil fuels plays a big part, as well as consuming less animal products. We even know how much we have to do to stay under the so-called 2°C-goal, which kinda allows us to know to a certain extent what environmental threats we will be facing in the late 21st and early 22nd century.
I hope I enlightened your horizont a tiny bit.

What I want to add:

Our species Homo Sapiens got where we are know because we are good at anticipating future threats. We knew that we could arm ourselves against malevolent carnivores for example. We made settlements to share our food and knowledge which made surviving a lot easier. We invented medicine, we even prolonged our own life span! Now we know (to a certain extent) that a big threat is coming and that we can do something about it. I guess our ancestors and Darwin would facepalm if they'd know what we aren't doing anything against this threat.

[Annoying]

The difference is that the effects of gravity and electricity are easily observable and understood by everyone. A prediction of what some old guy in a white labcoat says will happen in 100 years is not. They are basically just saying just trust us we are smart scientists who are right, now go and lower your quality of life and use shitty products so that we can delay the inevitable just a little longer.

In my opinion if its going to happen anyway, might as well get it over with. Rip off the bandaid all at once

They really aren't easily observable. It took some of the best minds in the world to determine that black holes exist -- a gravitational anomaly. How long did it take to confirm the theory behind black holes? Einstein proposed them in 1915. The first was found in 1971. It similarly took more great minds to confirm that gravity waves were real. Calculating electron flow through certain components (cough, cough, FETs) is non-trivial, and I'd bet you'd have a hell of a time observing and understanding them. Who, if not people who work their whole lives on the topics, are we supposed to trust? Our gut instincts?

[Allybeboba]

It fucking wasn't. The claim that it was is grossly and blatantly ignorant of what those terms mean.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...al-warming.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/
http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.gwvcc

"Global warming" refers to the increasing global temperature, which is still obviously a thing. It isn't "wrong" and has never dropped out of use.
"Climate change" is a broader category that includes global warming and all the secondary effects of that warming, like increased droughts, flooding, sea level rise, storm activity, changes in precipitation patterns, and so forth.

They've both been in active use simultaneously since the '60s, and there's been no change in that labelling whatsoever. It's a frankly stupid argument, and does nothing but underline exactly how little research you've bothered to do into even basic concepts.

Oooo another potty mouth. Your definitions that you just have were in that link I posted for all to see.
When quoting someone you really should not cherry pick their quote. One should quote the entire quote.

I did not state it was "wrong". Feel free to quote where I did.
The popular lexicon was "Global Warming" and it is now "Climate Change" for the people that make money off of the industry. Do you or do you not agree that there are people that have made an industry off of the the "environmentalist" movement? Al Gore and Elon Musk come to mind.

As I stated earlier, climate change does indeed exist. There is no denying that. It has existed on the Earth since it has formed. Research on this subject is not needed on my part my friend. Have a wonderful day!

- - - Updated - - -

And people accuse me of thinking the world is coming to an end with Trump as president. It would help their argument if he wasn't literally pushing us in that direction.

Each and every day they find something new to moan about.
Ironically, more likely than not the moaners could not or did not even vote in the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps if more places grew corn like the US we could turn this baby around!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...rth-180950460/

[Bloodwolf]

Oooo another potty mouth. Your definitions that you just have were in that link I posted for all to see.
When quoting someone you really should not cherry pick their quote. One should quote the entire quote.

I did not state it was "wrong". Feel free to quote where I did.
The popular lexicon was "Global Warming" and it is now "Climate Change" for the people that make money off of the industry. Do you or do you not agree that there are people that have made an industry off of the the "environmentalist" movement? Al Gore and Elon Musk come to mind.

As I stated earlier, climate change does indeed exist. There is no denying that. It has existed on the Earth since it has formed. Research on this subject is not needed on my part my friend. Have a wonderful day!

Of course there are people who make a living of the environmental movement, it should be that way, do you think the way our system works right now people will do this voluntarily? That doesn't change the fact that they are trying to contribute themselves to the solution of this big problem. They are just making money by doing so. In fact we need to change our markets to a more sustainable way, and yes there will be losers and winners, but we can do something about this problem like we are trying right now about the problem of automatisation.
Yes the term changed and it is good that it did, because global warming alone is kinda misleading if you ask me, because there are a lot more effects from the human intervention in our big ecosystem than just global warming.

[Orbitus]

Oooo another potty mouth. Your definitions that you just have were in that link I posted for all to see.
When quoting someone you really should not cherry pick their quote. One should quote the entire quote.

I did not state it was "wrong". Feel free to quote where I did.
The popular lexicon was "Global Warming" and it is now "Climate Change" for the people that make money off of the industry. Do you or do you not agree that there are people that have made an industry off of the the "environmentalist" movement? Al Gore and Elon Musk come to mind.

As I stated earlier, climate change does indeed exist. There is no denying that. It has existed on the Earth since it has formed. Research on this subject is not needed on my part my friend. Have a wonderful day!

- - - Updated - - -



Each and every day they find something new to moan about.
Ironically, more likely than not the moaners could not or did not even vote in the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps if more places grew corn like the US we could turn this baby around!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...rth-180950460/

Again, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Bloodwolf]

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps if more places grew corn like the US we could turn this baby around!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...rth-180950460/

From the link you posted:

The difference between the corn belt productivity's and the Amazon's is the incredible amount of inputs that go into creating growth in the U.S. We have to draw on vast resources to power unnatural temporary growth in a concentrated area. But, for a short period of time, it means we can produce far beyond what natural ecosystems like the Amazon can muster.

You got to be kidding me. Did you even read your own posted article?

[downnola]

Each and every day they find something new to moan about.

It should make you think about why that is when you realize it's not just democrats and liberals that are doing the bitching.

Ironically, more likely than not the moaners could not or did not even vote in the election.

I did. Even if I didn't, I'd still have the right to speak out. There's more to democracy than just voting in elections.

[Bender]

Likelihood. Maybe. Possible. Projected. Perhaps.

That's not how any of this works. Weather phenomenon follows some arbitrary kind of distribution curve based on the amount of energy in the system. Adding energy to the system will push the distribution such that higher intensity weather will become more frequent, and the maximum intensity possible will increase. This is not guesswork in any way at all.