Man made climate change

[bluefirecorp_]

Kinda crazy how human's are literally terraforming a planet's atmosphere.

[1714783722]

1714783722

[1714783722]

1714783722

[1714783722]

1714783722

[TECSHARE]

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

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

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

[bluefirecorp_]

I went to your first link and got a virus. That was sketchy.

Anyway, the scrolling list to the right of supporters was kinda funny though. I googled some. Social justice phds, music artist phds. These people probably wouldn't even begin to understand the actual science behind climate change. Remaining ignorant and trying to ignore reality will just make the problem worse later. Treating it as someone else's problem doesn't help solve it.

That's pretty bad man.

If you want refutation; https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/1#v

If you say that you don't want to read through the hundred page document, find me human influence refutation from a scientist from this decade. The data are simply overwhelming in this instance. It's not even worth arguing back and forth.

I figured I should have made this self moderated to keep your spam away

[Spendulus]

....
Kinda crazy how human's are...

Ya, they want to show you dat same old Hokey Stick but don't want you to figure out it's the Gore thing....so they put it vertical!!!!

Yes....

It's time....

Here we go....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

[KonstantinosM]

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

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

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

I'll refute all your "arguments".

1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.

Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.

The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.

So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.

2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.

What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, climate models with predictive capabilities.

Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.

3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.

4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments.  I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.

So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.

Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.

Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 1174–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.

They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.

5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.



I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change and it's impacts.

Starting with increased rates of sea level rise.
and
A Net loss of Glaciers.

These two can be observed by anyone.

It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling.

In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal.

So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing.

I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park.

Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today."


And this is my argument.

Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments.

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

[TECSHARE]

I went to your first link and got a virus. That was sketchy.

Anyway, the scrolling list to the right of supporters was kinda funny though. I googled some. Social justice phds, music artist phds. These people probably wouldn't even begin to understand the actual science behind climate change. Remaining ignorant and trying to ignore reality will just make the problem worse later. Treating it as someone else's problem doesn't help solve it.

That's pretty bad man.

If you want refutation; https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/1#v

If you say that you don't want to read through the hundred page document, find me human influence refutation from a scientist from this decade. The data are simply overwhelming in this instance. It's not even worth arguing back and forth.

I figured I should have made this self moderated to keep your spam away

Cool story bro: https://www.virustotal.com/#/url/7a93b2289d0f66408f0e1e6d29a9694691152bda61bd84c7d496b21597932885/detection

Is there something there you don't want people to look at? It is sad you need to make up stories about viruses rather than debating the issue.

Hey what does it feel like being so much more superior than everyone else and being the only one to know anything? Does it get stressful?

The "solution" to anthropogenic climate change is itself the problem. Classic Hegelian dialectic. Problem - Reaction - Solution.


Yes, why argue back and forth when some one else has already refuted the information you just sourced.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/06/15/the-epa-and-independence/

All the information you are basing your opinions on is not only baseless or manipulated, it is outdated. Keep trying! Lets see if you can produce any study that hasn't been completely torn apart.

[KonstantinosM]

The "solution" to anthropogenic climate change is itself the problem.

In a twisted way you're actually right on this point.


Burning coal releases CO2, Monoxide and Water but it also releases sulfates and nitrates.

Sulfates and nitrates reflect heat away from the earth. However sulfates and nitrates fall back into the earth way faster than Co2 gets removed. (in a matter of weeks compared to years decades)

Therefore once the coal stops burning, the planet warms up even quicker.

In fact if only 1/3 of the industrial world stopped burning coal runaway climate change would come into effect instantly, the arctic death spiral would conclude with ice free arctic in the summer (defined as less than 1 million sqkm of ice slosh in the arctic.

Wait another 3 years for the food shortages.


Wait another 3 years until you die of starvation from lack of food.

[TECSHARE]

I'll refute all your "arguments".

1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.

Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.

The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.

So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.

Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.

2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.

What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, climate models with predictive capabilities.

Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.

I made the important parts bold and underlined. This is exactly what most skeptics of the anthropogenic climate change theory would say. This cuts both ways.
Also, what exactly is my "second argument?", Please quote. It is difficult to respond to something if you don't specifically name it. The fact is people rely on energy to live, and reducing our capacity to produce it would directly lead to MANY lost lives. This isn't some boo-hoo story, it is simply a fact. Honestly though, I am really not even sure what you are responding to exactly. Also those "climate models" have been proven over and over again to have been manipulated to get a desired result. Even if they weren't demonstrated to be frauds, it would still just be a predictive model, NOT EMPIRICAL DATA.

3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.

That is convenient. I guess that after-school special knows more than a PhD and founder of Greenpeace.

4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments.  I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.

So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.

Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.

Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 1174–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.

They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.

How about instead of attacking the venue the man is speaking in, perhaps you can respond to his arguments. He is a PhD and founder of Greenpeace after all. He might have something relevant to say. Vibes man, like, very scientific dude.

5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.

Again? Did some one forget they have switched socks?

I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change* and it's impacts.

Starting with increased rates of sea level rise.
and
A Net loss of Glaciers.

These two can be observed by anyone.

It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling.

In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal.

So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing.

I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park.

Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today."


And this is my argument.

Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments.

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

*Source needed.

Neither of your examples there in any way prove humans are causing global warming. They would be, if anything evidence of global warming, not evidence humans are creating it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses  You know NASA, in the pocket of big oil as usual.
Also you might want to learn the difference between local climate change and global climate change.

Sure. If I am not mistaken that video did not mention man made climate change once, and is about at the level of an after school special for gradeschoolers, but ok.




https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425509/peak-oil-debunked/

Lots of doom and gloom. Very shallow understanding of facts with little regard for application of new technologies. Also it is old as fuck... which is funny because I can show you exactly how wrong those predictive charts they used are.

[KonstantinosM]

Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.

OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route?

How about this?

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

Or is NASA lying and making up satellite data?

The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident.

Carbon dioxide traps in heat.

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization.

Here is the data for the last few years.




It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss.

That shit can be seen from space.



You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.

Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.

Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.

You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.

The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.

Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.

And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion?

If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario.

If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable.

The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted.

If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same.


Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA.

I'm sure the nuance is killing you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/



I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.

Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.

[UconBit]

Climate change would happen with or without humans. That said, because of humans though climate change is happening really fast because of the way we live our lives. Each of us contribute to it. Let's also not forget the big corporations who do not give a damn about the pollution that comes from their factories. I remember watching a documentary wherein a province in China no longer have a clean drinking water because a factory nearby have been dumping toxic waste to their rivers for years. The people living nearby developed cancer and other diseases. And that is relatively a small factory compared to others.

[DireWolfM14]

Of course Climate Change is real, it's been happening since the Big Bang.  It's cyclic.  It's inevitable.  It's NOT all about you.
How about we look a bit further back in time, and really see what this planet has been up to:

[Spendulus]

Of course Climate Change is real, it's been happening since the Big Bang.  ....

Wasn't that Big Bang really hot?

[Blanca_Gregory]

It's funny we say climate change is man-made when we can't even find a solution to reverse the damage we incur to the environment, and now we are complaining about how the heat is annoyingly hot or that the hurricanes and flooding are going haywire, or that the ocean is running out of marine life. Is there anything else we can do about it? I don't know.

[bluefirecorp_]

Of course Climate Change is real, it's been happening since the Big Bang.  It's cyclic.  It's inevitable.  It's NOT all about you.
How about we look a bit further back in time, and really see what this planet has been up to:

200 -> 20 thousand years = trends over 180 thousand years.

If you noticed, the graph is misleading with the scale changes. They label it, but you're just comparing the lines.

Take a look at the graph above. The last couple years are pretty staggering.

[TECSHARE]

Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.

OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route?

How about this?

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

Or is NASA lying and making up satellite data?

The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident.

Carbon dioxide traps in heat.

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization.

Here is the data for the last few years.




It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss.

That shit can be seen from space.

Yes, lets. Again you need to learn the difference between localized or micro climate change and global aka macro climate change. As with the climate itself, ice cover is cyclical. While you are at it look into causality so you can learn the fact that correlation is not the same as causation. Even if your premise of ice loss was a fact this is still not evidence humans are the cause. However even on that premise the results are not clear. Showing me rising C02 levels, even if accurate, does not prove this is the causation of temperatures rising. For all we know it could be the RESULT not the cause, but if you believe hard enough it magically becomes "science", and anyone who is skeptical is equivalent to holocaust deniers. Not religious like behavior at all.




Looks pretty seasonal to me with no clear trend otherwise.


BTW, doubt is the foundation of scientific theory. What you are practicing is basically a "scientific" religion. You get your toadies/socks to merit your posts all you like, it will not give you any more facts to argue with.

You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.

Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.

Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.

You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.

The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.

Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.

And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

That's what attacking your arguments is. Also you have no science. You have beliefs, theories, and simulations. You don't seem to get basic premises of scientific theory like correlation not equaling causation, or the difference between micro and macro systems. There is a huge gap in your explanation of causality between human activity not only being the CAUSE of rising C02 levels, but the in ability to explain any definite causal links between macro climate change and human C02 output. By a huge gap, I mean you have nothing BTW.

You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion?

If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario.

If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable.

The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted.

If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same.


Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA.

I'm sure the nuance is killing you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

Again, learn the difference between correlation and causation. You deem yourself the grand arbiter of what is true and scientific, but you seem to have problems with basic scientific concepts, concepts grade schoolers comprehend.

I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.

Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.

Well you have been interpreting data. Good for you. I am sure you are an expert on climate science now. Yes, C02 can increase global temperature, yet there is no empirical data demonstrating this is the ACTUAL total cause. Yes, humans are probably increasing C02 output. Again, you provide no evidence humans are the primary driver of C02 levels rising in the atmosphere, let alone evidence to back your claim this C02 is primarily what is causing climate change.

This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.

[bluefirecorp_]

bullshit rambling...
This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.

Lol, your argument is based on fallacious thought and misunderstandings of science, not actual science. fuck off with the misrepresentation of science, you loony.

Inb4 the bait-and-switch argument in which you drop irrefutable evidence related to your claims, but unrelated to your position.

[Spendulus]

....You deem yourself the grand arbiter of what is true and scientific, but you seem to have problems with basic scientific concepts, concepts grade schoolers comprehend.....Yes, C02 can increase global temperature, yet there is no empirical data demonstrating this is the ACTUAL total cause....

Anyone who believes that by changing man's behavior, such as his burning fossil fuels in cars, the few millimeters rise each year in sea level will stop or reverse, is insane.

[TECSHARE]

bullshit rambling...
This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.

Lol, your argument is based on fallacious thought and misunderstandings of science, not actual science. fuck off with the misrepresentation of science, you loony.

Inb4 the bait-and-switch argument in which you drop irrefutable evidence related to your claims, but unrelated to your position.

That's nice. The problem is you are the one making the claims about global warming. The burden of proof IS ON YOU. So far you have presented data you argue is evidence of anthropogenic climate change, but really, even if the science was solid on it, it would only be evidence of rising temperature and C02 levels, then giving no evidence about causes.

You built a house without a foundation, and when I point that out, you demand I refute the roof exists, because if there is a roof there MUST be a foundation right? Learn to science.

[Spendulus]

bullshit rambling...
This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.

Lol, your argument is based on fallacious thought and misunderstandings of science, not actual science. fuck off with the misrepresentation of science, you loony.

Inb4 the bait-and-switch argument in which you drop irrefutable evidence related to your claims, but unrelated to your position.

That's nice. The problem is you are the one making the claims about global warming. The burden of proof IS ON YOU. So far you have presented data you argue is evidence of anthropogenic climate change, but really, even if the science was solid on it, it would only be evidence of rising temperature and C02 levels, then giving no evidence about causes.

You built a house without a foundation, and when I point that out, you demand I refute the roof exists, because if there is a roof there MUST be a foundation right? Learn to science.

Darn it, I never got past the scientific method. Some people have, and they just know it all already, so just write the full equation of climate change out, including the variable set and their definitions and interactions, and I'm okay with that.

[Abbie Hoffman]

We should hope that sustainable development agenda will be achieved and we'll be able to stop it for good.