Global warming isn't doing too well these days

It’s all about climate change now, not global warming. Do try to keep up.

Deal’s green yo wrote:

It’s all about climate change now, not global warming. Do try to keep up.

Exactly, it is BS. People know it is BS, so the keep changing the names and definitions. On that hundred miler thread the other day, I said, "global warming". One person said that it is now called climate crisis. GTFO with that BS. All this climate hysteria is BS.

Global warming is indeed a part of climate change.

The climate has obviously been changing due to human intervention and this has now become a very serious crises.

Paying attention` wrote:

Global warming is indeed a part of climate change.

The climate has obviously been changing due to human intervention and this has now become a very serious crises.

My problem with climate change is that we have no baseline to compare it to where climate was not changing. You can say warming has accelerated recently, whatever that means, but you can't say what the climate would be like without humans at the same time under the same conditions (minus humans).

My other problem is that the atmosphere has mass in a finite space. If there is more co2 in the air than ever, it means one of two things: 1) co2 is replacing some other gas and you're claiming co2 is more "greenhouse gassier" than whatever greenhouse gas it is replacing, for no apparent reason, or 2) if you aren't of the mind that co2 is replacing some other gas, then by releasing more co2, we are putting more mass in the same finite space, effectively compressing the atmosphere. We should not be talking about the greenhouse gas effect raising temperature; we should be battling atmospheric compression. That probably doesn't sell as many carbon credits though.

We are coming out of an ice age. It's gonna get warmer. The climate will change and humans would love believe that they control the planet, but they don't. I understood that back in the global freezing scare in the 1970s when they said that we were entering a new ice age. The fact is that there isn't enough information for global climate models to be accurate so they fudge the numbers to predict what they want to see.

Ignorant people are incapable of acknowledging their lack of knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

As a PNWer awaiting another smoke season, all I have to say is: thanks for ruining summer you ignorant twats.

Flounder wrote:

We are coming out of an ice age. It's gonna get warmer. The climate will change and humans would love believe that they control the planet, but they don't. I understood that back in the global freezing scare in the 1970s when they said that we were entering a new ice age. The fact is that there isn't enough information for global climate models to be accurate so they fudge the numbers to predict what they want to see.

Ignorant people are incapable of acknowledging their lack of knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

What exactly is the motivation for this global conspiracy involving nearly all of the known scientific community?

Please don't tell me that motivation to get grant money is enough to enable a hoax that is able to drown out a counter-info campaign funded by some of the biggest corporations on the face of the Earth.

Big lies require big money, both as funding and as a motivator to create the campaign in the first place. Whoever is lying about climate change would need SIGNIFICANT financial motivation to do so.

Either scientists are lying.... or oil companies are.....hmmmmmmmm.....this is a tough one...

you morans wrote:

As a PNWer awaiting another smoke season, all I have to say is: thanks for ruining summer you ignorant twats.

- as if forest fires are only because of the recent activity of man.

you morans wrote:

As a PNWer awaiting another smoke season, all I have to say is: thanks for ruining summer you ignorant twats.

Nobody understands what any of this means.

Here's a actual scientist.

what are you talking about? wrote:

Deal’s green yo wrote:

It’s all about climate change now, not global warming. Do try to keep up.

Exactly, it is BS. People know it is BS, so the keep changing the names and definitions. On that hundred miler thread the other day, I said, "global warming". One person said that it is now called climate crisis. GTFO with that BS. All this climate hysteria is BS.

Surely you will agree the polar caps at both poles are getting warmer and warmer. Surely you will agree the oceans are rising. Surely you believe the number of hurricanes spinning out of storms off the coast of west Africa toward western hemisphere have increased. Good: so we agree it is getting warmer and warmer between 60 to 90 degrees north and south latitude. We agree it is getting warmer between 15 degrees north and 15 degrees south latitude. Thirty to sixty degrees north and south latitude, we still have cold winters. Winters between thirty to sixty degrees latitude have cold days which allow global warming deniers to have a bit of a platform. I know the guys from the oil companies know the earth is getting warmer but they do not want to be regulated. Please tell me you work for an oil company. Please do not tell me you are a flat earther who does not believe the plant is warming.

Air Pollution will kill/disable us way before climate change.

rest of the country wrote:

you morans wrote:

As a PNWer awaiting another smoke season, all I have to say is: thanks for ruining summer you ignorant twats.

- as if forest fires are only because of the recent activity of man.

where exactly was that claimed or inferred?

here's a actual scientist wrote:

and the motivation is? wrote:

What exactly is the motivation for this global conspiracy involving nearly all of the known scientific community?

Please don't tell me that motivation to get grant money is enough to enable a hoax that is able to drown out a counter-info campaign funded by some of the biggest corporations on the face of the Earth.

Big lies require big money, both as funding and as a motivator to create the campaign in the first place. Whoever is lying about climate change would need SIGNIFICANT financial motivation to do so.

Either scientists are lying.... or oil companies are.....hmmmmmmmm.....this is a tough one...

Here's a actual scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLP4jPvd1PM

And to stack up against the weight of overwhelming world scientific consensus you bring me..............1 scientist.

Awesome work, mate.

Hwhat wrote:

you morans wrote:

As a PNWer awaiting another smoke season, all I have to say is: thanks for ruining summer you ignorant twats.

Nobody understands what any of this means.

Don't indict the entire world just because you don't understand something.

What you meant was "I don't understand what any of this means."

I completely agree. You don't.

oh damn you got me wrote:

here's a actual scientist wrote:

Here's a actual scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLP4jPvd1PM

And to stack up against the weight of overwhelming world scientific consensus you bring me..............1 scientist.

Awesome work, mate.

Very good science, don't know/understand the science, but because x amount of scientist say x you believe x. If 99% of scientist were for eugenics, would you support it?

Very good science wrote:

Very good science, don't know/understand the science, but because x amount of scientist say x you believe x. If 99% of scientist were for eugenics, would you support it?

Im not the person you are responding to, but I'll answer:

If the vast majority of scientists today all agreed that the most likely conclusion from a huge amount of peer reviewed and rigorously collected data showed eugenics to be the correct theory, yes of course I would agree with it being scientifically sound. I find the concept of eugenics unpalatable, but since I believe in following logic when forming opinions of what narrative is most likely to be the truth, not emotions, I would be forced to accept eugenics as the most likely story to be the truth.

However, I would then have a choice as to what to do about it. I wouldn't support policies that were discriminatory based on eugenics, despite my belief that the underlying differences causing people to create those discriminatory policies were valid.

However, you seem to find climate change to be emotionally unpalatable. So you seek out anybody who is a "scientist" who might agree with your emotional bias. You finally find that one scientist out of tens of thousands and latch onto him. Then you kick and scream that you are the one person who can see the entire scientific community is corrupt and perpetrating a massive conspiracy, despite their complete lack of motivation to do so.

If you were even remotely capable of logic, you would be commenting how man made climate change is real and will have serious impacts as it raises the average global temperature . Then you would suggest we make no attempt to stop or slow it for reasons X, Y, and Z.

TLDR: pick a better argument, you're either an absolute idiot, or you're a bit of an idiot as well as disingenuous.

What is appeal to authority for 500 Alex