Climate Change (2 Viewers)

[Tully B.]

I had an economics teacher who didn't believe in global warming, and I got into an argument with her that lasted about half a lesson, by the end of which we were leaning over our desks and shouting at each other.

Her argument was basically: "Now look here, I've been around much longer than you (she's like 120 years old), and the earth isn't getting any hotter. In fact, I was just in Tasmania, and it was actually colder than I remember it being. What do you have to say to that Mr thinks-he's-a-scientist?!"

 

[ekoolish]

What evidence?

Post 15 should shut down this thread. You can't evaluate the evidence. I've studied climate science. Shit is complex. Even at a PHD level, you're barely beginning to grapple with it.

lmao so you're admitting you don't know if Climate Change exists. Also, since you've studied climate change care to share some evidence that it does exist other than the usual sea level bs. You seem to be another Al Gore pupil.

 

[Daft_Punk]

I hope to god that you are trolling ekoolish.

 

[Kwayera]

lmao so you're admitting you don't know if Climate Change exists. Also, since you've studied climate change care to share some evidence that it does exist other than the usual sea level bs. You seem to be another Al Gore pupil.

*puts on patience hat*

Global Warming/Climate Change is occuring; that is undeniable. The question is whether it is natural or anthropogenic. The evidence overwhelmingly speaks for anthropogenic causes, and thus there is consensus in the scientific community about it.

There are always dissenters, but well, there's still biologists who don't believe in evolution.

 

[ekoolish]

*puts on patience hat*

Global Warming/Climate Change is occuring; that is undeniable. The question is whether it is natural or anthropogenic. The evidence overwhelmingly speaks for anthropogenic causes, and thus there is consensus in the scientific community about it.

There are always dissenters, but well, there's still biologists who don't believe in evolution.

Lol at the amount of people with multiple accounts.
I'm telling you that the evidence does not support anthropogenic causes. Refer to Nuclear Power?
Because i'm seriously sick of repeating myself to simpletons.

 

[Kwayera]

Lol at the amount of people with multiple accounts.
I'm telling you that the evidence does not support anthropogenic causes. Refer to Nuclear Power?
Because i'm seriously sick of repeating myself to simpletons.

I'm sorry, multiple accounts?

You're telling me the evidence does not support anthropogenic climate change. Okay. The majority of the world's climate scientists, who actually know what they're talking about, would beg to differ, but sure, you know more.

 

[Iron]

Ill take 'unsure' to mean skeptic also...

Whether it's happening or not (probably is) and whether mankind is to blame are questions a lowly law student couldnt hope to be satisfied of. In the meantime, I have nothing against controlling and limiting the pollution/activities that clearly have an immediate impact on the environment and the people who depend on it

 

[Daft_Punk]

Hi, Im an Engineer,

and as such i am not qualified to pass judgement on the facts and figures surrounding anthropogenic climate change. That is the job of climate scientists. So the following should make it pretty clear to any observer what their opinion on the matter is.

"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]"


Who are you to say that they are wrong? You haven't even finished school lol and are not even doing a relevant science course. You have no background in science let alone climatology. Why would you question the general scientific consensus? What you are suggesting is on par with denouncing the theory of evolution as a lie.

 

[yoddle]

Lol at the amount of people with multiple accounts.
I'm telling you that the evidence does not support anthropogenic causes. Refer to Nuclear Power?
Because i'm seriously sick of repeating myself to simpletons.

sdhcvsdhjcvbsjhkvb

1. Graney was saying that climate science was difficult. THAT IS ALL. How the hell, out of that, do you deduce that he was saying that climate science isn't real.

2. As for the nuclear power thread, I OWNED YOU. You were able to come up with ZERO evidence. Furthermore, you couldn't even understand the simple report language used by the IPCC.

Climate Change aside, LEARN TO BE RATIONAL.

 

[yoddle]

Hi, Im an Engineer,

and as such i am not qualified to pass judgement on the facts and figures surrounding anthropogenic climate change. That is the job of climate scientists. So the following should make it pretty clear to any observer what their opinion on the matter is.

"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]"


Who are you to say that they are wrong? You haven't even finished school lol and are not even doing a relevant science course. You have no background in science let alone climatology. Why would you question the general scientific consensus? What you are suggesting is on par with denouncing the theory of evolution as a lie.

So are you saying that no one is allowed to form an opinion, let alone act upon, information presented to the public by climatologists etc.?

Gee, we WILL get a lot done!

 

[Tully B.]

Lol at the amount of people with multiple accounts.
I'm telling you that the evidence does not support anthropogenic causes. Refer to Nuclear Power?
Because i'm seriously sick of repeating myself to simpletons.

I've never seen someone who is so arrogant, but simultaneously has not an ounce of intelligence.

And multiple accounts? Only a few people do that, and none of them are here. Nice attempt though, trying to sound perceptive.

Ill take 'unsure' to mean skeptic also...

Whether it's happening or not (probably is) and whether mankind is to blame are questions a lowly law student couldnt hope to be satisfied of. In the meantime, I have nothing against controlling and limiting the pollution/activities that clearly have an immediate impact on the environment and the people who depend on it

Exactly. Even if you aren't sure about "greenhouse gasses", you must see the immediate effect that fossil fuel have on the environment (you believe in pollution, don't you ekoolish?)

Either way, the response to global warming is a positive thing; cleaner air, long-term plan for electricity, etc.

 

[Graney]

lmao so you're admitting you don't know if Climate Change exists.

I'm not even sure if I exist.

Also, since you've studied climate change care to share some evidence that it does exist other than the usual sea level bs.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

 

[yoddle]

I've never seen someone who is so arrogant, but simultaneously has not an ounce of intelligence.

And multiple accounts? Only a few people do that, and none of them are here. Nice attempt though, trying to sound perceptive.



Exactly. Even if you aren't sure about "greenhouse gasses", you must see the immediate effect that fossil fuel have on the environment (you believe in pollution, don't you ekoolish?)

Either way, the response to global warming is a positive thing; cleaner air, long-term plan for electricity, etc.

But in taking the "well we may as well do it" approach, the response loses it sense of urgency.

And combatting greenhouse emissions right now is very important.

 

[yoddle]

I'm not even sure if I exist.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Wrong choice of evidence there Graney.

Apparently the IPPC engage in only "basic guesswork".

 

[Daft_Punk]

So are you saying that no one is allowed to form an opinion, let alone act upon, information presented to the public by climatologists etc.?

Gee, we WILL get a lot done!

No im saying we should form our opinion based off the opinion of climate change scientists

you are kidding yourself if you think anyone on bos has the knowledge and skills to analyse the data and facts regarding almost any scientific issue

and seeing as the general consensus of climate change scientists is that anthropogenic climate change is happening, who are we to argue lol

like jesus christ, ekoolish doesnt even do science (bio doesnt count and you all know it)

 

[B_B_J]

this thread is totally fucked

 

[Sprangler]

Surprisingly it's not you who fucked it, for once.

 

[ekoolish]

I'm not even sure if I exist.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

As i expected IPCC data.

Go here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007 05-03 AusIMM corrected.pdf

Read 'Theory of Climate' predominantly.

You maybe unsure about your own existence, but i assure you that your argument does not exist.

Also, this is not even on par with the theory of evolution. It's waste of time posting tbh, you guys have cemented your views on unsubstantial evidence.

 

[yoddle]

The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy?

 

[Kwayera]

Wrong choice of evidence there Graney.

Apparently the IPPC engage in only "basic guesswork".

Uh, no. The IPCC collects and collates the thousands of individual research by climate and other scientists, and produces a coherent narrative from it (i.e. produces a theory from a collection of facts, like evolution, though in this case it's still technically a hypothesis). The IPCC do not engage in "basic guesswork".