• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Article about Americans disagreements with scientists findings

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
Got some hardliners in this thread. You were duped well.

It's all about money and control. How much is Al Gore making off the "global warming" premise again?
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
manimal said:
go outside and stick your dick into a pile of snow.


see that little indentation?


proof you have an impact in your environment albeit a small one :p


jk jk
Click to expand...


Better be kidding.

You know, I just froze my ass off outside trying to smoke. If this global warming were true shouldn't I be in shorts? After all Al Gore predicted some catastrophic shit that would occur today back in the 80's.
 
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
Al Gore has nothing to do with global warming, just like Lance Armstrong has nothing to do with Cancer. Both are awareness-level activists, and that's it.

Furthermore, even if you believe Al Gore does have something to do with global warming, the size of his carbon footprint is not relevant to a conversation about whether or not global warming exists. It is, however, relevant to a conversation about what to do about it. The amount of money he makes doesn't matter at all.

A debate about whether or not climate change exists isn't about money or power at all. You're just wrong. Period.
 
M

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
cbrunny said:
Al Gore has nothing to do with global warming, just like Lance Armstrong has nothing to do with Cancer. Both are awareness-level activists, and that's it.

Furthermore, even if you believe Al Gore does have something to do with global warming, the size of his carbon footprint is not relevant to a conversation about whether or not global warming exists. It is, however, relevant to a conversation about what to do about it. The amount of money he makes doesn't matter at all.

A debate about whether or not climate change exists isn't about money or power at all. You're just wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

manimal said:
go outside and stick your dick into a pile of snow.


see that little indentation?


proof you have an impact in your environment albeit a small one :p


jk jk
Click to expand...

Well, let's be realistic here. The primary argument is that humans cause such a profound impact, that we are dramatically altering the climate. I don't dismiss the possibility, or the higher likelihood possibility that there is some impact, but that it is minimal and insignificant.

However, the general sweeping claims that we are somehow responsible for massive temperature changes is in no way able to be proven or sufficiently supported.

Morale of the story: even guys with small dicks can have an insignificant impact.

The "global warming"/"climate change"/"whatever the fuck they have changed the name to after being wrong multiple times over" challenge: prove it. Simple enough, right? Prove without a reasonable doubt that man-made global warming is responsible for the claims that are being made.

Please, give us the temperature and CO2 emissions data from the entire planet for the past, let's say, 4 billion years. Ok, ok, how about 3 billion years. Ah... nevermind then, let's say 2 billion. Oh? You don't say? Ok, I guess we'll just settle on the 100 years or whatever, because that proves everything!

Since it isn't even possible to prove that humans have even an insignificant impact on the climate, I suppose you better start worrying more about immortality for now so you can come back to prove global warming in several hundred million years.
 
Last edited:
NikolaeVarius

NikolaeVarius

Lifer
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
mrjminer said:
Please, give us the temperature and CO2 emissions data from the entire planet for the past, let's say, 4 billion years. Ok, ok, how about 3 billion years. Ah... nevermind then, let's say 2 billion. Oh? You don't say? Ok, I guess we'll just settle on the 100 years or whatever, because that proves everything!
Click to expand...

We have those. Ice cores are in fact a thing. And the ice core evidence also corresponds with multiple other sources of evidence that indicate carbon content the athmosphere.

And the evidence indicates that human beings are putting absolutely insane amounts of CO2 into the air.
 
M

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
NikolaeVarius said:
We have those. Ice cores are in fact a thing. And the ice core evidence also corresponds with multiple other sources of evidence that indicate carbon content the athmosphere.

And the evidence indicates that human beings are putting absolutely insane amounts of CO2 into the air.
Click to expand...

Oh, it does? Oh, we do?

Show the temperature data from across the globe for the past 4.5 billion years, by year, alongside the measured CO2 emissions from every point on the planet during that time frame.
 
NikolaeVarius

NikolaeVarius

Lifer
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Your refutation is about, what 3 scientists who say that they have doubts about this data? And that's it? No sources, no scientific paper refutation, nothing.

I could find 3 guys on my block who still think that we never went to the moon.

mrjminer said:
Oh, it does? Oh, we do?

Show the temperature data from across the globe for the past 4.5 billion years, by year, alongside the measured CO2 emissions from every point on the planet during that time frame.
Click to expand...


"Oh you think that dinosaurs actually existed? Show me the proof by providing every single skeleton of every single dinosaur that ever lived across the entirety of the planet and the exact moment of time that they existed"
 
Last edited:
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
mrjminer said:
Oh, it does? Oh, we do?

Show the temperature data from across the globe for the past 4.5 billion years, by year, alongside the measured CO2 emissions from every point on the planet during that time frame.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on those that deny it. Prove that climate change is not happening. If you're so confident, it should be a breeze.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
What I'm trying to point out is that we are not producing what was produced in prehistoric periods.
 
M

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
cbrunny said:
The burden of proof is on those that deny it. Prove that climate change is not happening. If you're so confident, it should be a breeze.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is not on me. I'm not the one trying to preset a theory as fact using an extremely marginal amount of data as indisputable proof.
 
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
John Connor said:
By 5 (FIVE) TIMES! http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Click to expand...

So what? What is the significance of this?

Seriously. I keep hearing this and I don't understand what the significance of this is. Think about it.

1. There was 5 times the amount of CO2 during the Jurrasic era than there is now.
2. The Jurassic era was 145 million years ago.
3. Homo Sapiens emerged about 200,000 years ago. That means for 144.8 million years, there were no humans.
4. In the 144.8 million years, the level of CO2 dropped to whatever it was 200,000 years ago, but presumably this is reasonably comparable to what we had in 1900.
5. CO2 was high and there were no humans. CO2 drops and Humans evolve. CO2 begins to increase again with humans around.

So what is the significance of CO2 levels in the Jurrassic era? All it tells us is that over a period of at most 145 million years, CO2 levels dropped significantly. The 100 years since 1900 represents 0.00139% of 145 million years. Is the change since 1900 to scale with the change from Jurassic era to 1900?

If the scales are equal, it's probably natural.

So let's do the math.

The claim is that 5 times the CO2 existed in the Jurassic era, so:

Current ppm: ~370 in 2000, extrapolated from 1900 that means it's about 382.
1900 ppm: ~290
Jurassic era: 5 times 382 = 1910

So, reduction per year over 144,999,885 years = 84.81675% decrease, or on a per-year scale about 0.0000005849% decrease per year from the Jurassic period to 1900.

Increase of 28.5862% from 1900 to today, on a per-year scale is 0.23988% per year.

Does a rate of change of 0.0000005849% equal 0.23988%? NO!

In fact, the rate of change from 1900 to today is 410,090.93 times greater than over the time period from the Jurassic Era.

So, why is this significant? Because we don't know what is going to happen next. We can predict forwards what will happen to the climate and how humans will adapt to it. But that's why it is important. Human's are required to adapt to whatever changing conditions we come across and if there is change in the global climate (which there has been since 1900) it will almost definitely result in the mass death of billions of humans in the future.That is a bad thing.
 
dphantom

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
cbrunny said:
it will almost definitely result in the mass death of billions of humans in the future
Click to expand...

there is no way you can possibly show that to be true.

I would love to see a CO2 level somewhere around 600ppm. there is a very good argument that the low CO2 levels of around 275ppm is nearing plant starvation levels. Optimum growth in a garden is around 1500ppm. That could be too high.

~600ppm would really improve agricultural output, increase forest growth and generally be a good thing. It may even contribute to some small rise in temperature though we still do not know how much the effect of CO2 has in the atmosphere.

Most recent studies continue to revise downward the forcing that can be attributed to CO2. Current estimates are 1.5C/century with at least one study (will try to find reference) indicating as low as .5C/century - essentially nothing but noise in regard to overall warming since the end of the LIA.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
cbrunny said:
it will almost definitely result in the mass death of billions of humans in the future.That is a bad thing.
Click to expand...


So much horse shit!

I can tell you the future will most likely be a cleaner one. Right now we rely on the common sense, job creating fossil fuel. Look at the evolution from the "London Fog" of the early 1900's to today in the industrial revolution.
 
Last edited:
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
John Connor said:
So much horse shit!

I can tell you the future will most likely be a cleaner one. Right now we rely on the common sense, job creating fossil fuel. Look at the evolution from the "London Fog" of the early 1900's to today in the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

You completely ignored the fact that I explained that what happened in the Jurassic period is completely non-relevant to the conversation. How convenient.
 
C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
John Connor said:
:rolleyes: Really?? You can't be this dense. He's a hypocrite dummy! He's pulling the ol' "global warming" BS and at the same time he is polluting the planet. Same with Leonardo Dicaprio.
Click to expand...

Al Gore is a hypocrite so climate change doesn't exist? Not the same thing, bud. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom