'Murica! (179 Viewers)

Jul 1, 2010
26,352
yes, it is. As an actual scientist to an actual non-scientist.

The science behind it is very simple actually, and also actual. Where there is wiggle room is how far is too far and how quickly we can get there. Even then, I'd rather trust what actual scientists say and not the uneducated wishful opinion of people, who don't really have the foundation to even have an opinion on science-related matters, let alone their opinion be worth anything.
Yes, blindly trust scientists, as if scientists are not biased. Do you know where they get their research funding from?

What are the advocated solutions for the so-called climate change problem? taxes, subsidies to unprofitable energy companies and world government to save the planet. That should ring a bell or two.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
Yes, blindly trust scientists, as if scientists are not biased. Do you know where they get their research funding from?

What are the advocated solutions for the so-called climate change problem? taxes, subsidies to unprofitable energy compagnies and world government to save the planet. That should ring a bell or two.
scientists have enough things to research than make up shit to get funding. the thing with science is that a hoax problem cannot survive for long as it is constantly subjected to critique from all sides and the "bad seed" (as in speculative conjectures that have no real footing in science) gets weeded out pretty quickly these days.
If there is science to not be trusted, it's the fraudulent stuff being put out by "scientists" whose research is funded by corporations with special interest. In this particular debate, that's usually the case for research that minimizes the importance of the issue.
 
Jul 1, 2010
26,352
scientists have enough things to research than make up shit to get funding. the thing with science is that a hoax problem cannot survive for long as it is constantly subjected to critique from all sides and the "bad seed" (as in speculative conjectures that have no real footing in science) gets weeded out pretty quickly these days.
If there is science to not be trusted, it's the fraudulent stuff being put out by "scientists" whose research is funded by corporations with special interest. In this particular debate, that's usually the case for research that minimizes the importance of the issue.
All their predictions have been wrong. The reason this hoax survives is because it's pushed by the UN (via the IPCC, which has been so fraudulent in their mockery of peer-review process that's it's laughable).

It's a political agenda to bring in world government, that much is obvious. Even the pope is on it.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,145
Yes, blindly trust scientists, as if scientists are not biased. Do you know where they get their research funding from?

What are the advocated solutions for the so-called climate change problem? taxes, subsidies to unprofitable energy companies and world government to save the planet. That should ring a bell or two.
The funny thing is, there are plenty of scientists who refute the claims as well. I actually had class with one at the same school as the hockey stick theory dude. So it's not a one-sided argument by any means.

you looking in the mirror again, aren't ya?
As an actual scientist with a degree in the subject matter, it's not worth it to waste my time on this because 1) you have a limited understanding of climate dynamics and 2) you had your mind made up the day Al Gore emitted his CO2 in your face.

At the end of the day, if you're truly concerned about it, reduce your carbon emissions to zero and kill yourself for the greater good. You'll be a hero.
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
All their climate computer model predictions have been wrong by a lot (none of them have predicted the pause in warming since 1998) but they continue driving this bullshit to put taxes, give subsidies to shitty energy and bring world government.

The sad thing is that so many people buy this garbage.
stop talking about things you don't understand. ask, educate yourself but don't act like listening to a politician or reading a speculative article or two somehow grants enough knowledge to have a final and decided opinion on a matter you really know very little about.

you raised this 1998 crap before and I linked you to a bunch of articles and reserach, where very plausible explanations were pointed out. You either didn't read any of that or didn't understand it at all.

It's perfectly all-right to question and doubt. What's not all-right is to pretend that somehow lack of knowledge is good enough of a reason to create a final opinion on a matter.
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
The funny thing is, there are plenty of scientists who refute the claims as well. I actually had class with one at the same school as the hockey stick theory dude. So it's not a one-sided argument by any means.



As an actual scientist with a degree in the subject matter, it's not worth it to waste my time on this because 1) you have a limited understanding of climate dynamics and 2) you had your mind made up the day Al Gore emitted his CO2 in your face.

At the end of the day, if you're truly concerned about it, reduce your carbon emissions to zero and kill yourself for the greater good. You'll be a hero.
you are not a scientist. taking a couple of classes in college on the subject (and the rest being a little basic math and other fluff to make up for the degree requirements) doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you a mere student, who's not even in the field anymore. I am sorry if I take the word of people with actual degrees on the matter over yours.

btw, I've done science all my life. currently finishing up phd in physics. a big part of what I do is model complex systems on super-computers both at unis and national labs. actually, modeling weather patterns was a project I was part of as an intern some years ago. I may not specialize in climate science (when it comes to research at the phd level), but I am pretty sure I know more actual science, spanning several fields, than some punk-ass undergrad whose greatest achievement in his academic career is passing a diff. eqns course.

- - - Updated - - -

It's actually the opposite, I'm educated on the matter while you are completely ignorant.

Good for you if you want to believe that CO2 drives the climate and that the end of the world is coming, you can choose to be this stupid and ignorant if you want.
the above would suggest exactly the opposite. not knowing something is far better than pretending that you do. then again, ignorance is a choice, not a curse.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,145
you are not a scientist. taking a couple of classes in college on the subject (and the rest being a little basic math and other fluff to make up for the degree requirements) doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you a mere student, who's not even in the field anymore. I am sorry if I take the word of people with actual degrees on the matter over yours.

btw, I've done science all my life. currently finishing up phd in physics. a big part of what I do is model complex systems on super-computers both at unis and national labs. actually, modeling weather patterns was a project I was part of as an intern some years ago. I may not specialize in climate science (when it comes to research at the phd level), but I am pretty sure I know more actual science, spanning several fields, than some punk-ass undergrad whose greatest achievement in his academic career is passing a diff. eqns course.
So here's a guy who almost has a PhD (supposedly) and can't come to his own conclusions. I guess that makes your degree worthless?

You don't know who I am, but I was correct in that you don't know climate science. Congrats on being a life-time student as well.

- - - Updated - - -

All their climate computer model predictions have been wrong by a lot (none of them have predicted the pause in warming since 1998) but they continue driving this bull$#@! to put taxes, give subsidies to $#@!ty energy and bring world government.

The sad thing is that so many people buy this garbage.

One of the main flaws from a meteorological perspective is that we were always taught (through thermodynamics and the use of the ideal gas laws) that PV = nRT. But this can't be possible under the global warming theory. One would need extra mass or gravity to bring the equation into equilibrium with a sheer increase in temperature. One might say atmospheric volume could increase, but at the same time the ozone layer is shrinking (also caused by greenhouse gasses), so that complicates matters even further.

The other theory is that AGW's rising temperatures create more water vapor from rising air parcels which leads to the development of more clouds and storms. Even while tornadoes and hurricanes have been below average for a number of years, the creation of more clouds would actually reflect more radiance from the sun back into space, which actually has a cooling effect on the surface. So even then, the energy balance of the atmosphere would remain in equilibrium.

So in other words, nobody has a clue as to what is really occurring and to think so otherwise is sheer hubris. The Republicans believe in God, the Democrats believe in man as God.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,703
Trump is surging in the polls now. I guarantee what is happening in Europe with the refugees is going to add even more fuel to his fire.

His poll standing with have a direct relationship with what's happening in Europe.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Trump is surging in the polls now. I guarantee what is happening in Europe with the refugees is going to add even more fuel to his fire.

His poll standing with have a direct relationship with what's happening in Europe.
I would rather have Carson. He seems like the biggest psycho of them. :tup:
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
icemaη;5140708 said:
Him and Carson being top two with a big margin is incredible. What's more incredible is that they show no sign of slowing down.
This.

I mean I still think that neither will actually manage to get the nomination in the end, but by now I'm actually entertaining that as a possibility :D

- - - Updated - - -

then we will be the next potus, without the slightest doubt
The first perfectly egalitarian democracy!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 7, Guests: 156)