Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:33 am

It is, after all, settled science. :lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 848 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:14 am

AAAAAAAAAAAAnd they miss on the power of my post!

"Wont be used for its intended purpose"

Its like how can we swindle these dipshits out of 10,000 times the amount of money that was stolen from social security.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:16 am

Every year... For twenty years...
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:46 am

Buc2 wrote:It is, after all, settled science. :lol:

Why do you think that 97+% of actively publishing climate scientists are lying?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:04 am

mdb1958 wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAnd they miss on the power of my post!


If your posts weren't written in parables less people would miss your Jesus moments.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:24 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
mdb1958 wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAnd they miss on the power of my post!


If your posts weren't written in parables less people would miss your Jesus moments.


Mlm, able to respond is much better than unable to respond.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:30 am

My bad! I left out the word correctly...
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:30 am

mdb1958 wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
If your posts weren't written in parables less people would miss your Jesus moments.


Mlm, able to respond is much better than unable to respond.


For the sake of the reader....that's not always true.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:32 am

mdb1958 wrote:My bad! I left out the word correctly...


Yes. You correctly did leave out the word.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:47 am

mdb1958 wrote:Powerless individuals who cant and wont control the power, no matter how much money you piss away that wont even be used for its intended purpose.

Ok mdb, if you want a response to this, let's start by structuring a sentence with a subject and a verb. Let's break down your "sentence" to see why nobody responded:
Powerless individuals who cant and wont control the power,

Yes, that is the definition of "powerless", thank you for clarifying. We will make note that the subject of the sentence is "individuals".
no matter how much money you piss away

There should be a comma after this dependent clause. It's not a necessary part of the sentence, and can't stand on its own. Who is "you"? Are you addressing the reader or someone in particular?
that wont even be used for its intended purpose.

Based on the structure, this prepositional phrase should modify "individuals", but I'm assuming you mean it to modify "money". We seem to have tw subjects here. What are the individuals doing? There's no verb that I can find that will complete the idea. You need a subject and a verb to complete a thought. Otherwise, I could just say "Pitchers." and expect that to be understood as a complete thought.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:54 am

bucfanclw wrote:
mdb1958 wrote:Powerless individuals who cant and wont control the power, no matter how much money you piss away that wont even be used for its intended purpose.

Ok mdb, if you want a response to this, let's start by structuring a sentence with a subject and a verb. Let's break down your "sentence" to see why nobody responded:
Powerless individuals who cant and wont control the power,

Yes, that is the definition of "powerless", thank you for clarifying. We will make note that the subject of the sentence is "individuals".
no matter how much money you piss away

There should be a comma after this dependent clause. It's not a necessary part of the sentence, and can't stand on its own. Who is "you"? Are you addressing the reader or someone in particular?
that wont even be used for its intended purpose.

Based on the structure, this prepositional phrase should modify "individuals", but I'm assuming you mean it to modify "money". We seem to have tw subjects here. What are the individuals doing? There's no verb that I can find that will complete the idea. You need a subject and a verb to complete a thought. Otherwise, I could just say "Pitchers." and expect that to be understood as a complete thought.


So...let's try to figure out what he intended, since he is above actually being clear.

I think he tried to say was something like "Politicians will spend tax payer money on programs not wanted by the tax payer."

Which is a nice vague statement I think we can all agree on.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:01 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Ok mdb, if you want a response to this, let's start by structuring a sentence with a subject and a verb. Let's break down your "sentence" to see why nobody responded:

Yes, that is the definition of "powerless", thank you for clarifying. We will make note that the subject of the sentence is "individuals".

There should be a comma after this dependent clause. It's not a necessary part of the sentence, and can't stand on its own. Who is "you"? Are you addressing the reader or someone in particular?

Based on the structure, this prepositional phrase should modify "individuals", but I'm assuming you mean it to modify "money". We seem to have tw subjects here. What are the individuals doing? There's no verb that I can find that will complete the idea. You need a subject and a verb to complete a thought. Otherwise, I could just say "Pitchers." and expect that to be understood as a complete thought.


So...let's try to figure out what he intended, since he is above actually being clear.

I think he tried to say was something like "Politicians will spend tax payer money on programs not wanted by the tax payer."

Which is a nice vague statement I think we can all agree on.

So then the politicians are the powerless individuals, or is it us? If it's us, are we also the ones pissing away money? The more I try to make sense of his post, the more confused I get.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:20 pm

First - think of the thread title. Second - think of money - that dont really even exist. Thirdly - think of - It aint gonna get used for what it's friggin supposed to be used for.


Howz bout, we tell the rest of the world to pay off our twenty trillion and then we will lower the carbon emissions by one degree.


WIN/WIN ------- atleast we would benefit from the lie.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:37 pm

mdb1958 wrote:First - think of the thread title. Second - think of money - that dont really even exist. Thirdly - think of - It aint gonna get used for what it's friggin supposed to be used for.


Howz bout, we tell the rest of the world to pay off our twenty trillion and then we will lower the carbon emissions by one degree.


WIN/WIN ------- atleast we would benefit from the lie.

Lower by one degree of what? If it's a lie, how are we supposed to lower emissions? Why wouldn't we want to lower our emissions just so we can have cleaner air for us to breath, climate change aside? If you're more worried about our national debt, why aren't you speaking up against tax cuts instead?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:39 pm

Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 848 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:41 pm

mdb1958 wrote:First - think of the thread title. Second - think of money - that dont really even exist. Thirdly - think of - It aint gonna get used for what it's friggin supposed to be used for.


Howz bout, we tell the rest of the world to pay off our twenty trillion and then we will lower the carbon emissions by one degree.


WIN/WIN ------- atleast we would benefit from the lie.

Good luck getting the rest of the world to pay off the national debt....most of which is just debt that the government owes to our retirement funds.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:42 pm

Buc2 wrote:


Why do you think that 97+% of actively publishing climate scientists are lying?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:46 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:


Why do you think that 97+% of actively publishing climate scientists are lying?

Because he found one scientist that collaborates with Breitbart and doesn't waste his time submitting work for peer review that says it's all a lie.

Checkmate, libtard!
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:56 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
deltbucs wrote:
Why do you think that 97+% of actively publishing climate scientists are lying?

Because he found one scientist that collaborates with Breitbart and doesn't waste his time submitting work for peer review that says it's all a lie.

Checkmate, libtard!

It's sad to see Buc2 go off the deep end like this just to hold on to the belief that his team tells him to believe in. Just part of the problem with team politics. It limits some people's ability to think for themselves.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:59 pm

Image

The “97 percent” statistic myth first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 848 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:07 pm

Buc2, on a scale 1 to 10, how made up is your mind on this whole thing?
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:14 pm

Buc2 wrote:
The “97 percent” statistic myth first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle


Stuff like this is retarded. They are attacking two words instead of the bigger picture. But, okay. Let's say the 97 percent thing is totally wrong. Then what? Does that mean the global temperature is not rising? Does that mean human pollution is totally okay and does nothing to harm the planet?
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:18 pm

Buc2 wrote:Image

The “97 percent” statistic myth first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle

So do you not think that climate scientists that publish most of their pier-reviewed papers on the subject are not the best subjects for the survey? Are you against pier review or making pier-reviewed papers public?


Here's a link from NASA which cites multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is extremely likely cause by human activity.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:22 pm

It seems like you are going to plug your ears if it doesn't fit the agenda that your team tells you to believe, Buc2, but if you want to educate yourself....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fa ... 6c76daa8b2
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 287 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:31 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:Buc2, on a scale 1 to 10, how made up is your mind on this whole thing?

I can't answer that question, so I'll put it this way instead... I'd say that my belief that the climate is changing is hovering around the 80%-85% range and my belief that climate change is anthropogenic in cause is right around 10%-15% range.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 848 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby NYBF » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:38 pm

Buc2 wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:Buc2, on a scale 1 to 10, how made up is your mind on this whole thing?

I can't answer that question, so I'll put it this way instead... I'd say that my belief that the climate is changing is hovering around the 80%-85% range and my belief that climate change is anthropogenic in cause is right around 10%-15% range.


You're not even sure if the climate itself is changing?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5367
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 183 times
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:38 pm

NYBF wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I can't answer that question, so I'll put it this way instead... I'd say that my belief that the climate is changing is hovering around the 80%-85% range and my belief that climate change is anthropogenic in cause is right around 10%-15% range.


You're not even sure if the climate itself is changing?

No. I'm not.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9946
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 848 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:51 pm

A line from my favorite Dennis Miller rant...

Add to the angst bouillabaisse the current prospects of a flatlining economy, an environment that's choking to death on its own ****, and a sexual atmosphere that's about as warm, safe, and inviting as a Zagreb bunker. Christ, if I were in my twenties now, I'd be bitching so hard, I'd make Beck sound like Tony Newley.


that was a rant on Gen-X being angst ridden from the late 90's. See, even Fox News contributors know that putting bad **** in the air is bad.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12067
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:15 pm

Buc2 wrote:
NYBF wrote:
You're not even sure if the climate itself is changing?

No. I'm not.


****ing hell, just spent an hour typing something up and it logged me out... didn't ctrl+c it before... anyways... here's the synopsis of what I was going to say:

The climate has, is, and always will be changing, due to:

a) the earth wobbles and **** and has an eccentric orbit (~100,000 to 1 million yr timescales)
b) the earth has a molten core and the continents are always moving and **** (~million yr timescales)
c) thanks to the land moving, the water flows goes in different directions and changes the heat distribution on the planet (~million yr timescales)

the climate will never not be changing

what is relevant to us, and this cannot be overstated, is THE RATE at which things are changing

Buc2, if you get to 99% on the natural climate changing (you can keep 1% for "don't believe everything you think"/alien/deep time/multiverse conspiracy stuff), I'll go on and try to move your 15% anthropogenic number up, but you gotta work with me. Let me know if you need more info to get to 99% on the natural climate change, my first post was way more detailed and fleshed out, so I get it if this doesn't do it for you. I just spent an hour typing **** for nothing in the middle of a busy day and I want to shoot myself though but I'm interested in the dialogue
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 304 times
Been thanked: 197 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], The Outsider and 5 guests