UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he said "highest ever recorded" you goddamn skidmark.
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's true that records have only been kept for a bit more than a century here. The trend is nonetheless clear here in the front range of all places, the home of NCAR, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The other side has refused to assert any credible alternative, and we know they're funded by the interests who benefit from the stalemate.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It was such an amazingly take the dog for a walk twice completely out of season gorgeous kind of day such as I won't soon forget...
Hmmmmm
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What global temperatures were 4 billion years ago is irrelevant to the situation today. That said, I'd like to see the estimates for global temperatures back then. If you'd care to share something on that, I'm interested.
This really isn't a red vs blue partisan issue. The cost of denying the scientific explanation is tremendous and everybody will suffer if the anti-science party manages to delay mitigation much longer. Your cute little 4B years ago counter is a bit ridiculous in this light.
The question a climate science denier needs to answer is why after 10,000 years of slow decline, global temperature is rising so quickly? Climate science has settled on the cause being industrial fossil fuel emissions and they have a credible reason for this explanation. Tell me credit card joe the first, what explanation can you come up with that explains it? Don't just make shit up, have some data and science behind your answer.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That wasn't an answer to Ty's question. Why you think Cretaceous atmospheric CO2 at that time has anything to do with today's global warming is something I'd like to hear. The earth was a lot warmer back then too, due to greenhouse effect of --- wait for it ---- high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
And here in the present day we are emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in greater quantities than ever before. It seems little wonder to me to correlate that activity with higher measured atmospheric concentrations of such gases, along with the accompanying rise in measured temperatures around the world.
To doubt and deny all this is to be a science denier in general- or at least selectively whenever it's convenient, and that's a dangerous attitude that attempts to stop the mechanism of change and adaptation. Science has to be our guide, not campaign contributions or religious fervor. To turn away from this is the end of greatness for any civilisation, for it turns off the taps of innovation we all badly need to face the challenges of the future.
To doubt and deny all this is to be a science denier in general- or at least selectively whenever it's convenient, and that's a dangerous attitude that attempts to stop the mechanism of change and adaptation. Science has to be our guide, not campaign contributions or religious fervor. To turn away from this is the end of greatness for any civilisation, for it turns off the taps of innovation we all badly need to face the challenges of the future.
Last edited:
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
Lets back up. What is your point exactly? High levels of Co2 is bad for the earth?
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
Complete conjecture. Ever before? bold statement.
visajoe1
Well-Known Member
I can sell you some end of the world insurance. Real cheap
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Who here can honestly say that they believe a person who denies the theory of gravity is fit to hold public office?
..germ theory?
..atomic or cell theory?
... I think you see where I'm coming from..
As DiCaprio says, those that deny empirical scientific evidence are not fit to hold public office for the fact that they are responsible for making decisions that affect public policy. This is not a controversial thing to say or believe. I'm certain these same Christian fundamentalists who hold said beliefs would feel the exact same way I do about their beliefs as they do about a Muslim fundamentalists beliefs entering the culture by legal decree.
Believe whatever you want to believe. But when it comes to public policy funded by the taxpayers, your beliefs don't mean shit to me. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it's your job to base public policy on that which can be objectively observed.
..germ theory?
..atomic or cell theory?
... I think you see where I'm coming from..
As DiCaprio says, those that deny empirical scientific evidence are not fit to hold public office for the fact that they are responsible for making decisions that affect public policy. This is not a controversial thing to say or believe. I'm certain these same Christian fundamentalists who hold said beliefs would feel the exact same way I do about their beliefs as they do about a Muslim fundamentalists beliefs entering the culture by legal decree.
Believe whatever you want to believe. But when it comes to public policy funded by the taxpayers, your beliefs don't mean shit to me. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it's your job to base public policy on that which can be objectively observed.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
who the fuck cares what you say?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Explain how it's a "waste of time"
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. A greenhouse gas traps more heat in the atmosphere in the same way a pane of glass does in a greenhouse, hence the term.. It traps heat in the atmosphere, thereby heating it up. This is literally what I did in 2nd grade in 1994 as a science project;
CO2 heats up the atmosphere by trapping energy from the Sun. One of the main pollutants emitted by production is CO2.. This is not rocket science..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
As if that matters to someone who would choose to deny the science of climate change. Your statement is actually pretty hilarious considering it's condescending towards a man who chose to become a professional actor (one of the best in the business if I say so myself) for that professions perceived lack of science or STEM fields at large since it doesn't necessarily require those disciplines to become a successful actor... Except the overwhelming majority of scientists and those actually working in STEM fields accept the scientific consensus on climate change..
So, what you're actually saying is "Really. Who the fuck cares what climate scientists say."...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
WE are emitting more than ever. Anthropomorphic related CO2 increases leading to global warming.
One big consequence of global warming is sea level rise. Billions of people around the world live within 3 vertical feet of sea level. These populations are at ever increasing risk of losing their homes and livelihoods as time goes on and sea levels inexorably rise. Some island nations in the Pacific are already bring to disappear.
This is a concrete example of why more CO2 in the atmosphere that leads to global warming is BAD.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Enlighten yourself and read a few pages in this thread. You are the one posting "harm the earth" straw man argument. The topic is human caused climate change.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Anthropogenic
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
AH SHIT
Throw the whole fucking thing in the trash, ya got me.
One misspelling and poof! No more climate change argument.
It's good to be simple-minded...
