John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

[MasterOfUsers]

And, the pictures of the lights have zero to do with anything. If they were all powered by magic fairy dust that was so green it was an entirely new color of smugness, the picture of all the lights would be exactly the same.

You saying "look how much power these people are using! that is proof we are causing global warming" is incredibly stupid.

Are you... like a crazy person?

Of course if the actual power usage was from pixie dust it would not matter but it is NOT, that is the fucking point.

You may think that because there are things in your household that draws a lot more power than lightbulbs that it doesn't matter but it bloody well does, if you were charged with the electricity bill for that you'd be in debt by the millions WEEKLY.

 

[Paratus]

^What does having lights have anything to do with controlling climate change? Is my CFL bulb running actually increasing the global average temperature?


Also, if we have such a profound difference by release more CO2 gas into the atmosphere, please point to a data source that shows the temperature is steadily rising faster than it was a thousand years ago, or 500, or 200. It shouldn't be that hard to provide data that in the 200 years we've had an accepted scale and the ability to measure temperature, that as more nations become industrialized (producing more CO2) the average temperature would be rising at a faster rate. Surely 200 years of data is enough to show something like that right?

Here you go:

 

[Gunslinger08]

100% of the Scientists, skeptics or otherwise, say climate change is real.

That was never the debate.



We had Ice ages before - of course the climate has changed since Ice Ages.



The question is if Climate change is driven by man made CO2 and if it is, by how much.

I'm not talking strictly about scientists. You would be amazed at the ignorant opinions I hear everyday from the general public. The debate over whether or not it exists at all is far from over, in their minds.

 

[smackababy]

Are you... like a crazy person?

Of course if the actual power usage was from pixie dust it would not matter but it is NOT, that is the fucking point.

You may think that because there are things in your household that draws a lot more power than lightbulbs that it doesn't matter but it bloody well does, if you were charged with the electricity bill for that you'd be in debt by the millions WEEKLY.

And none of that has anything to do with proof that humans have any effect on climate change other than "they use electricity". No fucking way dude! Showing a picture of a bunch of densely populated areas lit up at night isn't proof humans have impact on anything except the ability to be seen in space.

Here you go:

Oh look, a graph without it's axis labeled or any real information whatsoever. Is this what is passing for research these days?

 

[Paratus]

And none of that has anything to do with proof that humans have any effect on climate change other than "they use electricity". No fucking way dude! Showing a picture of a bunch of densely populated areas lit up at night isn't proof humans have impact on anything except the ability to be seen in space.



Oh look, a graph without it's axis labeled or any real information whatsoever. Is this what is passing for research these days?

Ok

Here you go:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

 

[peonyu]

And none of that has anything to do with proof that humans have any effect on climate change other than "they use electricity". No fucking way dude! Showing a picture of a bunch of densely populated areas lit up at night isn't proof humans have impact on anything except the ability to be seen in space.



Oh look, a graph without it's axis labeled or any real information whatsoever. Is this what is passing for research these days?

Ok, simple question. Where does all of the excess CO2 that we put into the atmosphere everyday of every year go ? If you cant answer that fully then the only logical outcome = rising temps for the planet.

Ill start. the Oceans usually are a carbon sink, 40% of human caused CO2 ends up in the Ocean [at the cost of rising acidity which is effecting the oceans in a large way but thats another story]. That still leaves 60% CO2 out there. 15% is soaked up by plants and forests [which we are busy cutting down atm]. 45% is left for the atmosphere and remains there. Hence rising temp - math is at work there. And thats just facoring in today, Long term is even worse since the third world is rapidly modernizing [3/4ths of humanity] and the CO2 output may become 4x higher than what it is today by 2050.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

"Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle

All of this extra carbon needs to go somewhere. So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere. Eventually, the land and oceans will take up most of the extra carbon dioxide, but as much as 20 percent may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

The changes in the carbon cycle impact each reservoir. Excess carbon in the atmosphere warms the planet and helps plants on land grow more. Excess carbon in the ocean makes the water more acidic, putting marine life in danger."

 

[ultimatebob]

Sounds like a case of "since we can't fix everything, let's do nothing."

US manufacturing is already having problems competing with China on cost. I don't see how adding some crazy scheme where they need to pay even more overhead for "carbon credits" is going to help matters.

 

[michal1980]

US manufacturing is already having problems competing with China on cost. I don't see how adding some crazy scheme where they need to pay even more overhead for "carbon credits" is going to help matters.

liberals think that if the us cuts its emissions by increasing our energy costs many times over we will both magically 'save' the planet and jobs at the same time.

meanwhile in the rest of the 'third' world. a few billion people are trying to emulate our way of life all of which require massive amounts of energy use. Are these countries and people going to continue to live in the 3rd world conditions just because CO2 levels are getting higher?

The reality is there isn't much the us can do. We can increase our costs, lose more jobs, and the co2 levels will raise. As time goes on, our portion of output will continue to shrink.

China and India have ~8 times our population.

china uses roughly 1/3rd the amount of energy per person as the usa, but is 4 times bigger. If they just double there energy use. We'd have to stop all energy use to compensate for that increase.

Inidia uses roughly 1/12 the amount of energy per person as we do. Also 4 times larger then the usa. If they just match china's current energy use. the usa would be close to having to stop using energy.

So unless you man made America hating global warming nutters have some magic bullet, please show us what America can do to stop what you say is unstoppable.

what is this magical completely clean energy source that the entire world can use so that your dooms day doesn't happen?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

liberals think that if the us cuts its emissions by increasing our energy costs many times over we will both magically 'save' the planet and jobs at the same time.

meanwhile in the rest of the 'third' world. a few billion people are trying to emulate our way of life all of which require massive amounts of energy use. Are these countries and people going to continue to live in the 3rd world conditions just because CO2 levels are getting higher?

The reality is there isn't much the us can do. We can increase our costs, lose more jobs, and the co2 levels will raise. As time goes on, our portion of output will continue to shrink.

China and India have ~8 times our population.

china uses roughly 1/3rd the amount of energy per person as the usa, but is 4 times bigger. If they just double there energy use. We'd have to stop all energy use to compensate for that increase.

Inidia uses roughly 1/12 the amount of energy per person as we do. Also 4 times larger then the usa. If they just match china's current energy use. the usa would be close to having to stop using energy.

So unless you man made America hating global warming nutters have some magic bullet, please show us what America can do to stop what you say is unstoppable.

what is this magical completely clean energy source that the entire world can use so that your dooms day doesn't happen?

I elect you to be chained to the production table first, your son when he is three, your wife is excused when she is giving birth but at no other time, if you disagree you will be starving to death.

That is the punishment for not working in China and it is pure capitalism in action.

let's do what they do real fast because emulating the third world sheitholes should be a priority, right?

You daft wise and beautiful woman.

 

[michal1980]

I elect you to be chained to the production table first, your son when he is three, your wife is excused when she is giving birth but at no other time, if you disagree you will be starving to death.

That is the punishment for not working in China and it is pure capitalism in action.

let's do what they do real fast because emulating the third world sheitholes should be a priority, right?

You daft wise and beautiful woman.

you should see a doctor, you have some issues.


But I'll give you a shot, what in my brief analysis do you disagree with?

Both China and India use far less energy then use, but have more people. If there energy use increases to even a fraction of what we currently use. All our 'savings' will be like pissing into the wind.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

you should see a doctor, you have some issues.


But I'll give you a shot, what in my brief analysis do you disagree with?

Both China and India use far less energy then use, but have more people. If there energy use increases to even a fraction of what we currently use. All our 'savings' will be like pissing into the wind.

I note that you didn't answer any of my question but tried to divert.

I'll give you one more chance.

 

[michal1980]

I note that you didn't answer any of my question but tried to divert.

I'll give you one more chance.

where did I say anything about emulating the third world?

I was talking about the third world emulating us.

If they do that, there energy usage will explode. Which means if the USA wants to stop man made global warming we have to stop existing. Except even that wont be enough. We'd have to be negative CO2 consumers to balance out the growth of India and China.

Or should India and China stop growing?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Of course it will be much easier for those scientists talking about CAGW on the TV without someone pointing to things like,
"Why is the temperature in the last 14-17 years not increased even though the CO2 emissions kept accelerating in the same time period?"

 

[fskimospy]

They would probably say that temperatures have increased and that more than one thing affects the climate.

Next question?

 

[DigDog]

oh this again?

well i held my self-evident truth for myself in the past, to avoid disrupting your fun, but here it is for the needy:

stop calling it climate change. call it what it is:

POLLUTION (in caps)

who cares about the science of earth climate. let's simply stop pollution.

or maybe someone wants to argue humans do not produce pollution?

 

[GaiaHunter]

oh this again?

well i held my self-evident truth for myself in the past, to avoid disrupting your fun, but here it is for the needy:

stop calling it climate change. call it what it is:

POLLUTION (in caps)

who cares about the science of earth climate. let's simply stop pollution.

or maybe someone wants to argue humans do not produce pollution?

CO2, that essential substance to life on Earth, is POLLUTION?

 

[GaiaHunter]

They would probably say that temperatures have increased and that more than one thing affects the climate.

Next question?

Except that the temperatures haven't as show by satellite data?

And lets look at real temperature instead of anomalies.

And now more than one thing affects climate?
So which things affect climate?
Which things are responsible for what part of the warming?

 

[fskimospy]

Actually they have. And what do you mean 'and now more than one thing affects climate'? That's about as obvious a straw man as you could pull out.

You realize all these same arguments have been refuted on here dozens of times, right? Why you want to continue to be duped is beyond me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

CO2, that essential substance to life on Earth, is POLLUTION?

Yes, it is.

Know what else will blow your mind? You can die from drinking too much water. Hell, too much vitamin A has toxic effects, also.

Turns out, the world is actually a complicated and nuanced place, clearly exceeding the capabilities of your embarrassing ignorance. Sit down, and shut up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSRD_JdL5c

 

[dainthomas]

Yes, only 65 say that man is the cause of global warming. Most of the rest of them range from man is a driving factor, man is a major contributor, man is a partial contributor. And that's where the rest of that 97% comes from. It's even in your link.

That's a pretty big range though. What if we all go back to hunting and gathering, but are just a partial contributor so the temperature keeps going up nearly as much. That would be kind of a bummer.

I'm all for perfecting cellulose and algae based biofuel, fusion, solar power, tidal generators etc. But all the kooks who think crippling the economy by taxing the crap out of fossil fuels is going to solve everything are out of their minds. I think that's where a lot of people have a problem. Focus on developing these other technologies and when they become cheaper than fossil fuels they'll be adopted naturally.

 

[jhbball]

And, the pictures of the lights have zero to do with anything. If they were all powered by magic fairy dust that was so green it was an entirely new color of smugness, the picture of all the lights would be exactly the same.

You saying "look how much power these people are using! that is proof we are causing global warming" is incredibly stupid.

You're not very smart. LOL.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yes, it is.

Know what else will blow your mind? You can die from drinking too much water. Hell, too much vitamin A has toxic effects, also.

Turns out, the world is actually a complicated and nuanced place, clearly exceeding the capabilities of your embarrassing ignorance. Sit down, and shut up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSRD_JdL5c

Just because you can die from drinking too much water that doesn't make water a pollutant or even toxic.

Generally pollutants aren't a product of nature.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Actually they have. And what do you mean 'and now more than one thing affects climate'? That's about as obvious a straw man as you could pull out.

You realize all these same arguments have been refuted on here dozens of times, right? Why you want to continue to be duped is beyond me.

No, the points I have raised haven't been refuted.


So what is/are the responsible things for the temperature increase of the last century/century and a half?

The narrative of CAGW consist of "Man made CO2 is the main climate driver and the temperature will raise xºC for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The CO2 keeps raising, at an ever increasing speed, but the temperatures according to the satellite data have stalled (as in the temperature increase is statistically no different from 0 - that is what a error bigger than the measure mean).

 

[dainthomas]

The CO2 keeps raising, at an ever increasing speed, but the temperatures according to the satellite data have stalled (as in the temperature increase is statistically no different from 0 - that is what a error bigger than the measure mean).

The new narrative is that the ocean is gobbling up the extra heat. Which apparently no one thought of before.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The new narrative is that the ocean is gobbling up the extra heat. Which apparently no one thought of before.

Which of course leads to "how will the heat leave the ocean?" and if there is an actual mechanism that will concentrate that heat again "how do we know the previous warming wasn't due to the heat leaving the ocean?".

Which is a far cry from "the science is settled!".