Topic: Man made climate change (Read 480 times)

But these guys think a mini ice age is coming, and pretty fast.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/917000/science-sun-cooling-earth-space-global-warming

In just 30 years time, the sun could be significantly cooler, leaving us with conditions that may result in freezing conditions.

Based on 20 years of observations and collected data, a research team at the University of California in San Diego has calculated that the sun will be seven per cent cooler, and dimmer, by 2050.....
The scientists predict a “significant probability” of a near-future grand minimum because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles is similar to the period prior to previous grand minimum events.

Fragile liberal goose-stepping snowflakes, rejoice!

You may not melt after all!

If you have already produced it, it should not be hard to quote then right? Show me empirical data supporting the premise that global warming is a result of human C02 production. Not evidence of correlation, not simulations, not projections, not opinions, empirical data.

I've presented evidence, you're refusing to accept said evidence. You don't take any scientific evidence into account, you refuse to debate in good faith or honestly.

You're literally just trolling people to get reactions or to spread misinformation. I'm not quite sure at this point for you in particular. There's totally a list of state sponsored trolls, but you being part of the list is quite an interesting question.

It seems you like to attack climate change and refute any evidence that it exists. You don't refute there's evidence of it, but you refute all direct evidence of it, even when presented with said evidence.

I don't really see your objective? Maybe your life is so bad you actually feel good about yourself for making other people dumber? Like what's the point of acting like a retard?

I hope you know you're wrong, at least on the inside, because the world doesn't give a shit about your opinion or refusal to look at the evidence. The world is responding regardless of what you do to try to stop it.

How unhinged must you be to insist some one literally only asking for a source is trolling. Some times you make this too easy for me. You call it trolling, I call it showing the world your complete lack of logic or critical thought by asking simple questions, and repeatedly demonstrating your inability to answer them.

Fuck off troll. You'll just say "fake news" or demand more evidence. After linking the research paper which covers pretty much every aspect, you'll link to some trash tier blog that disputes their claims. After that, you'll use false equivalence to compare my peer-reviewed source to your trash blog.

There's no point in playing your game. Do some actual fucking research regarding the issue rather than relying on everyone else to spoon feed you shit.

Jesus christ, pretty bad when you can't even use google to find basic fucking facts.

I swear, you literally exist to troll.

Nice art.

Source

yep, the agriculture industry contributes something like 25% of greenhouse gases.

Great. You have a premise. Now back it up with empirical data. Not guesses. Not statements. Not beliefs. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

I notice that while you recite the party line, you don't refute what I said. So I bolded it. You can look at it again.

Global warming is real and caused by humans and is a true threat to the future. Humans are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth's temperature by burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests and farming livestock.
The amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

I have no problem with ACTUAL sustainable development I should note. The problem is "sustainable" has become a code word for profitable depopulation under the umbrella of philanthropy.

Technology is the solution. Nothing in the mainstream now is the solution alone. There are many advanced technologies that have been suppressed because they break market and profit models, or systems of control. All of our problems can be potentially solved with the proper application of already existing but suppressed technology.

This whole anthropogenic global warming scheme is a diversion from this and simply a way to preserve the control system and profit from depopulation in a way people believe is for "the common good".

We should hope that sustainable development agenda will be achieved and we'll be able to stop it for good.

Darn it, I never got past the scientific method. Some people have, and they just know it all already, so just write the full equation of climate change out, including the variable set and their definitions and interactions, and I'm okay with that.

That's nice. The problem is you are the one making the claims about global warming. The burden of proof IS ON YOU. So far you have presented data you argue is evidence of anthropogenic climate change, but really, even if the science was solid on it, it would only be evidence of rising temperature and C02 levels, then giving no evidence about causes.

You built a house without a foundation, and when I point that out, you demand I refute the roof exists, because if there is a roof there MUST be a foundation right? Learn to science.

Anyone who believes that by changing man's behavior, such as his burning fossil fuels in cars, the few millimeters rise each year in sea level will stop or reverse, is insane.

Lol, your argument is based on fallacious thought and misunderstandings of science, not actual science. fuck off with the misrepresentation of science, you loony.

Inb4 the bait-and-switch argument in which you drop irrefutable evidence related to your claims, but unrelated to your position.

Yes, lets. Again you need to learn the difference between localized or micro climate change and global aka macro climate change. As with the climate itself, ice cover is cyclical. While you are at it look into causality so you can learn the fact that correlation is not the same as causation. Even if your premise of ice loss was a fact this is still not evidence humans are the cause. However even on that premise the results are not clear. Showing me rising C02 levels, even if accurate, does not prove this is the causation of temperatures rising. For all we know it could be the RESULT not the cause, but if you believe hard enough it magically becomes "science", and anyone who is skeptical is equivalent to holocaust deniers. Not religious like behavior at all.




Looks pretty seasonal to me with no clear trend otherwise.


BTW, doubt is the foundation of scientific theory. What you are practicing is basically a "scientific" religion. You get your toadies/socks to merit your posts all you like, it will not give you any more facts to argue with.





That's what attacking your arguments is. Also you have no science. You have beliefs, theories, and simulations. You don't seem to get basic premises of scientific theory like correlation not equaling causation, or the difference between micro and macro systems. There is a huge gap in your explanation of causality between human activity not only being the CAUSE of rising C02 levels, but the in ability to explain any definite causal links between macro climate change and human C02 output. By a huge gap, I mean you have nothing BTW.




Again, learn the difference between correlation and causation. You deem yourself the grand arbiter of what is true and scientific, but you seem to have problems with basic scientific concepts, concepts grade schoolers comprehend.




Well you have been interpreting data. Good for you. I am sure you are an expert on climate science now. Yes, C02 can increase global temperature, yet there is no empirical data demonstrating this is the ACTUAL total cause. Yes, humans are probably increasing C02 output. Again, you provide no evidence humans are the primary driver of C02 levels rising in the atmosphere, let alone evidence to back your claim this C02 is primarily what is causing climate change.

This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.

200 -> 20 thousand years = trends over 180 thousand years.

If you noticed, the graph is misleading with the scale changes. They label it, but you're just comparing the lines.

Take a look at the graph above. The last couple years are pretty staggering.

It's funny we say climate change is man-made when we can't even find a solution to reverse the damage we incur to the environment, and now we are complaining about how the heat is annoyingly hot or that the hurricanes and flooding are going haywire, or that the ocean is running out of marine life. Is there anything else we can do about it? I don't know.