|
On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out.
On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it.
The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates.
I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying.
|
btw:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/holocene.php
read this, this is basic geology/geography. If you don't think the "average" temperatures of the entire earth climate is going to change after an ice age, and then a little ice age no more than 400 years ago, then you're sadly mistaking.
Heres the thing about climatology:
To "accurately" study a climate, they need weather data from 30 years in time, this could be 1920-1950, 1950-1980 and so forth.
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself.
|
That's assuming we have to deal with the problems of tomorow with today's technology which is most definately silly.
There are already some decent alternatives to the traditional energy sources and a few that might blow up in the next 5-10 years and make oil/natural gas pretty much obsolete.
People seem to forget how high the standard of living is compared to 50 years ago even going through the current economic crisis and that the technological rate of progress is constantly accelerating thus making the future very very bright regardless of the perceived serious problems that we're facing today.
|
On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 00:56 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 00:54 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 15:53 starfries wrote:On July 26 2012 15:50 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 14:26 Shady Sands wrote:By now, some of you may have already read the Rolling Stones' excellent article I'm amazed to learn we really have the point where many are increasingly of the opinion that we all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place and some say that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans. While that's a great book, what does that quote have to do with global warming? I wonder if this guy is still around and if he now has his answer. All you people saying the science is settled and anticipating economic collapse are, in the politest of terms, fucking idiots. What a useful contribution. Please, do elaborate. best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph
rofl and you weren't just doing the same?
hipster hypocritical retard
|
On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 27 2012 00:56 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 00:54 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 15:53 starfries wrote:On July 26 2012 15:50 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 14:26 Shady Sands wrote:By now, some of you may have already read the Rolling Stones' excellent article I'm amazed to learn we really have the point where many are increasingly of the opinion that we all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place and some say that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans. While that's a great book, what does that quote have to do with global warming? I wonder if this guy is still around and if he now has his answer. All you people saying the science is settled and anticipating economic collapse are, in the politest of terms, fucking idiots. What a useful contribution. Please, do elaborate. best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard
Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out.
|
On July 27 2012 01:18 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 27 2012 00:56 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 00:54 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 15:53 starfries wrote:On July 26 2012 15:50 dvorakftw wrote:On July 26 2012 14:26 Shady Sands wrote:By now, some of you may have already read the Rolling Stones' excellent article I'm amazed to learn we really have the point where many are increasingly of the opinion that we all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place and some say that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans. While that's a great book, what does that quote have to do with global warming? I wonder if this guy is still around and if he now has his answer. All you people saying the science is settled and anticipating economic collapse are, in the politest of terms, fucking idiots. What a useful contribution. Please, do elaborate. best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out.
just saying what he said to me? good story katie holmes
|
On July 27 2012 01:12 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it. The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates. I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying.
I don't think that 20 trillion "just evaporates." That 20 trillion (or w/e it actually is, keep in mind we're talking about a rolling stone article) is based on the idea that our energy consumption and methods will proceed in a projected fashion that is somewhat consistent with what we are doing now. It is based on the current value of those raw materials in an energy market that is similar to our current one.
If we quickly shift to alternatives, money will be generated from those alternatives that wasn't anticipated beforehand. Alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc.) require raw materials of their own, and those projections would have to change in order to meet the increased demand of those alternatives. Would it cover the entire 20 trillion? I would guess no, but it wouldn't be a complete 20 trillion deficit.
|
On July 27 2012 00:38 WhiteDog wrote:
I find it ridiculous how people trust the all mighty new god "science" to find another source of energy as potent as oil in the little time we have left if we continue consuming the way we do now...
What?
|
On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself.
This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. The EPA and NASA are organizations of scientists. Facts have no political bias, and you don't get to choose your facts because of who you voted for in the last election. + Show Spoiler +To quote Aaron Sorkin: I'm a registered republican; people just think I'm a liberal because I believe hurricanes are caused by barometric shifts and not gay marriage.
|
On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please.
lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago?
I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side"
This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit.
If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit
|
On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit
You forgot /tinfoilhat.
|
And with that argument, i would say at least 75% of my student body in geography department thought it was bullshit, so i guess we are all just denialist who are bad evil villains for actually learning some truth behind it.
is the world warming up?
undeniably
is it due to humans?
no
|
On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat.
the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil?
typical shithead liberal
basing the entire earths climate on a 30 year study seems pretty tinfoil to me, so it's in the eye of the beholder
|
On July 27 2012 00:38 WhiteDog wrote:
I find it ridiculous how people trust the all mighty new god "science" to find another source of energy as potent as oil in the little time we have left if we continue consuming the way we do now...
the slight difference is that science is not based on faith but on facts
|
On July 27 2012 01:22 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:12 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out. On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it. The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates. I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying. I don't think that 20 trillion "just evaporates." That 20 trillion (or w/e it actually is, keep in mind we're talking about a rolling stone article) is based on the idea that our energy consumption and methods will proceed in a projected fashion that is somewhat consistent with what we are doing now. It is based on the current value of those raw materials in an energy market that is similar to our current one. If we quickly shift to alternatives, money will be generated from those alternatives that wasn't anticipated beforehand. Alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc.) require raw materials of their own, and those projections would have to change in order to meet the increased demand of those alternatives. Would it cover the entire 20 trillion? I would guess no, but it wouldn't be a complete 20 trillion deficit.
You're right, and in fact the 20 trillion doesn't actually just evaporate if we decide to leave it in the ground either (since leaving it isn't a single decision, it is many decisions made at different times, and with different levels of certainty), so it's an absolutely failed premise to assume it does. Not only that, but the 20 trillion doesn't necessarily make its way into the general economy either, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have the same multiplier effect as investments in sustainable energy infrastructure, which has shown in a lot of different areas to have huge positive effects on local economies many times greater than the actual gov't expenditure.
|
On July 27 2012 01:31 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat. the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil? typical shithead liberal
They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim.
You: Say those sources are wrong, give no sources of your own, and say you took some class at Texas State that proves it all wrong. Then you were reduced to baseless and vulgar polemic name-calling.
Good job.
|
On July 27 2012 01:34 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:31 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat. the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil? typical shithead liberal They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim. You: Say those sources are wrong, give no sources of your own, and say you took some class at Texas State that proves it all wrong. Good job.
Graduating from the best Geography department in the nation makes me a little more accredited to call bullshit on this than internet links, sorry if theres no link you don't have "proof" but linking me to fucking gov't agencies really doesn't make you an amazing "Researcher" rather than just typing nasa and epa in google and calling that facts, so your argument there is pretty dumb.
www.whitehouse.gov
www.fbi.gov
there's 2 gov't agencies for you? amidoinrite
you: just stick up for others, cause you don't have your own opinion? show me your badass internet links bro!
|
On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit
Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations?
For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens.
I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea:
what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side"
Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago?
Hmmm....
Graduating from the best Geography department in the nation makes me a little more accredited to call bullshit on this than internet links, sorry if theres no link you don't have "proof" but linking me to fucking gov't agencies really doesn't make you an amazing "Researcher" rather than just typing nasa and epa in google and calling that facts, so your argument there is pretty dumb. www.whitehouse.govwww.fbi.govthere's 2 gov't agencies for you? amidoinrite
It would help if the content of your links actually had something to do with the climate change discussion. By contrast, my links actualy DID have content on climate change, including a whole tab entitled "evidence." Protip: These agencies employ some of the best climate scientists in the country.
And actually, while we're at it, how does a geography degree give you any sort of sway in a climate debate?
|
On July 27 2012 01:34 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:31 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat. the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil? typical shithead liberal They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim. You: Say those sources are wrong, give no sources of your own, and say you took some class at Texas State that proves it all wrong. Good job.
Yup, there are some pretty angry / odd / hypocritical people that sometimes post in these threads, but we don't have to pay attention to them right?
I like the EPA site in that it's a more or less credible source (though I sometimes grit my teeth at the stances it takes on some agricultural matters), and it does a nice job of presenting information. Hopefully it doesn't get defunded like a lot of similar Canadian organizations under the current gov't.
|
On July 27 2012 01:21 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:18 Heh_ wrote:On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:
best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out. just saying what he said to me? good story katie holmes
On July 27 2012 01:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
you're a retro wannabe hipster faggot
in response to
On July 27 2012 01:07 eits wrote:
look at a fucking scientific paper that tells me this please and not some retro wannabe hipster faggot writing on shit he has no clue about
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
