Global Warming Explained so even a BRAIN DEAD LIBERAL should understand it!

[Avorysuds]

Who else will change it? Bears?

Say we change all .3%... How much of a difference do you think it will have? .3% difference in overall weather? You have to remember you dumb ignorant fuck, the other 99.7% of *change* happening is do to everything else. It's not as if the weather was sitting in a perfect state, never changing and then .3% came along and fucked it all up.... unless of course you don't believe in climate changing over time by things like Space, the sun, volcanoes, animals, the oceans, forests, fires and pretty much everything else.



See., you hate science. You're like a back woods bro science redneck who claims to know stuff like a shaman or some crazy ass chit.

If .3% isn't significant enough in your expert opinion. What % would be significant for you?

With 6 billion people on the planet and claims that man made global warming is going to make the world inhabitable, I'd say around 60 or 70% need to come from humans, not .3%.

I mean think of it terms of what can you actually do with .3%. Cut it to .27%? So you want to make a .03% change over what, 25 years? But lets be honest, in that 25 year time frame humans might be doing .4% worth of all Co2 admissions... because you know more people, more energy being used and all that.

So yes, 60% seems fair, because you would only be able to cut that number by so much over such a long period of time and it might actually have an impact. But Humans doing .3% now at 6 billion people, with hopes of slowing that growth on a level that can't even be measured seems pointless... This all based on the fact that .3% makes no difference as it stands.

Pollution = bad, focus on that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'd like to hear why humans should just accept it and throw our hands up in defeat. Why is that a smart option? Money? lol

 

[Avorysuds]

No, it's not. It is such a vanishingly small number that it is debatable that they can actually MEASURE IT. Instruments are not capable of measuring even the slightest impact that man has...the instruments aren't precise enough.... That's why they resort to computer models. GCM's can be programmed to give you any response you want.

The GCM's that the AGW mafia uses were tested and it was found that no matter WHAT numbers you punched in there was always warming coming out the other end. That is a fatal flaw that they ignored, and continue to ignore.

In other words, the only "science" you have on your side is science FICTION!

Give me a number then. Even a ballpark range. What is significant enough according to you?

Answer: none

As I said, 60-70%. Question back at you nubz...

How much difference would cutting .3% of all man made Co2 admission to .27% Co2 admission over 25 years make? This not taking into context growth of population nor countries moving into greater energy usage.


Answer:______________________.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'd like to hear why humans should just accept it and throw our hands up in defeat. Why is that a smart option? Money? lol

Answer the question you low life bottom feeder. You are changing the goal post, first it's humans cause GW, now it's "even though we don't cause or control any meaningful amount of GW co2 admission, why should we admit defeat!?!?!!?!" Should we start building a shield in space to block the sun you fucktard?

 

[Avorysuds]

Here, try this not so scientific but more scientific experiment than you have done since high school.

Fill a glass full of water, now in a separate but equal size glass fill it with .3% of what is in the first glass of water and set them next to each other.... Now, take a third glass, equal size and fill it with .ZERO3% (.03%) of the amount you have in the first glass of water. Remove the same amount from glass 1 as you have in glass 3... Do you feel that will change the course of climate change?

If you realize how hard it is to even measure .3% of water realize .03 will be extremely hard for you to do. That's what you're claiming will save the world. Basically you don;t have a logiocal answer to the problem and you want to call everyone else stupid while you drive your car, fly in planes, tye on your energy using computer and live in a house/appt and so on and so on and so on...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Give me a number then. Even a ballpark range. What is significant enough according to you?

Answer: none

As I said, 60-70%. Question back at you nubz...

How much difference would cutting .3% of all man made Co2 admission to .27% Co2 admission over 25 years make? This not taking into context growth of population nor countries moving into greater energy usage.


Answer:______________________.

Who knows? But what I do know is cutting Co2 EMMISSIONS has more benefits than down sides.

Would you agree?

 

[Avorysuds]

Answer: none

As I said, 60-70%. Question back at you nubz...

How much difference would cutting .3% of all man made Co2 admission to .27% Co2 admission over 25 years make? This not taking into context growth of population nor countries moving into greater energy usage.


Answer:______________________.

Who knows? But what I do know is cutting Co2 EMMISSIONS has more benefits than down sides.

Would you agree?

I honestly don't care. What I care about is pollution, Global warming, Climate change or Climate distortion is pure bullshit that takes the attention off pollution for mindless drones trying to score useless political points in a dying nation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

As I said, 60-70%. Question back at you nubz...

How much difference would cutting .3% of all man made Co2 admission to .27% Co2 admission over 25 years make? This not taking into context growth of population nor countries moving into greater energy usage.


Answer:______________________.

Who knows? But what I do know is cutting Co2 EMMISSIONS has more benefits than down sides.

Would you agree?

I honestly don't care. What I care about is pollution, Global warming, Climate change or Climate distortion is pure bullshit that takes the attention off pollution for mindless drones trying to score useless political points in a dying nation.

Whether you care of not doesnt mean anything. Less Co2 is better for everyone whether you care or not because reality doesnt care if you care

Thats why your questions are bullshit because none of it will change your mind. Science is wrong (except when its not) and something something name change.

I'm sorry if you cannot care about more than 1 thing at a time but I can and so can others. I hope you dont have a kid because caring for them would "take attention" off of your wife. womp womp

 

[Avorysuds]

Who knows? But what I do know is cutting Co2 EMMISSIONS has more benefits than down sides.

Would you agree?

I honestly don't care. What I care about is pollution, Global warming, Climate change or Climate distortion is pure bullshit that takes the attention off pollution for mindless drones trying to score useless political points in a dying nation.

I know thats why your questions are bullshit because none of it will change your mind. Science is wrong (except when its not) and something something name change.

I'm sorry if you cannot care about more than 1 thing at a time but I can and so can others. I hope you dont have a kid because caring for them would "take attention" off of your wife. womp womp

You can't even show a single scientific theory that is provable on a topic you claim to believe in. A topic that the claims keep "evolving" year to year, yet every time it changes you seem to accept the new revised theory as truth and discard all old beliefs as ok because it was based on science despite that not being the case.

Like I said, you don;t care about fixing the problem, hence the ignoring of my question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I honestly don't care. What I care about is pollution, Global warming, Climate change or Climate distortion is pure bullshit that takes the attention off pollution for mindless drones trying to score useless political points in a dying nation.

I know thats why your questions are bullshit because none of it will change your mind. Science is wrong (except when its not) and something something name change.

I'm sorry if you cannot care about more than 1 thing at a time but I can and so can others. I hope you dont have a kid because caring for them would "take attention" off of your wife. womp womp

You can't even show a single scientific theory that is provable on a topic you claim to believe in. A topic that the claims keep "evolving" year to year, yet every time it changes you seem to accept the new revised theory as truth and discard all old beliefs as ok because it was based on science despite that not being the case.

Like I said, you don;t care about fixing the problem, hence the ignoring of my question.

Thats how science works...new info produces new results. There are plenty theories out there the only problem is that you have been programmed to call every one of them fake except for the science from oil scientists because they dont have anything to gain /sarcasm

 

[Avorysuds]

I know thats why your questions are bullshit because none of it will change your mind. Science is wrong (except when its not) and something something name change.

I'm sorry if you cannot care about more than 1 thing at a time but I can and so can others. I hope you dont have a kid because caring for them would "take attention" off of your wife. womp womp

You can't even show a single scientific theory that is provable on a topic you claim to believe in. A topic that the claims keep "evolving" year to year, yet every time it changes you seem to accept the new revised theory as truth and discard all old beliefs as ok because it was based on science despite that not being the case.

Like I said, you don;t care about fixing the problem, hence the ignoring of my question.

Thats how science works...new info produces new results. There are plenty theories out there the only problem is that you have been programmed to call every one of them fake except for the science from oil scientists because they dont have anything to gain /sarcasm

That is not how science works you moron. You can't claim something to be scientifically proven, demand others agree because there is a "consensus" only to a year later shift to a whole new theory and claim once again consensus.

Once again, you avoid the .3% because you know you have no case at all, you simply want to feel knocking back Co2 admission by .03% will be better, despite it not doing anything.

In fact there are more Co2 admissions now than just 5 or 10 years ago and yet all "global warming" has scientifically been proven to stop. When asked about how this is possible on NPR the guy defending global warming said "we just don't know yet." Meaning it's not science, it's made the fuck up as they go along, "junk science."

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'd like to hear why humans should just accept it and throw our hands up in defeat. Why is that a smart option? Money? lol

Answer the question you low life bottom feeder. You are changing the goal post, first it's humans cause GW, now it's "even though we don't cause or control any meaningful amount of GW co2 admission, why should we admit defeat!?!?!!?!" Should we start building a shield in space to block the sun you fucktard?

Correction: Humans contribute to increasing the levels of GW.

Maybe thats why you dont understand because the foundation of your beliefs are off

 

[Avorysuds]

I'd like to hear why humans should just accept it and throw our hands up in defeat. Why is that a smart option? Money? lol

Answer the question you low life bottom feeder. You are changing the goal post, first it's humans cause GW, now it's "even though we don't cause or control any meaningful amount of GW co2 admission, why should we admit defeat!?!?!!?!" Should we start building a shield in space to block the sun you fucktard?

Correction: Humans contribute to increasing the levels of GW.

Maybe thats why you dont understand because the foundation of your beliefs are off

How much do they add, how much can you stop them from adding, over how long and how much of a difference will it make?

Again, .3% all humans = all nations. Even if the US cut by 30% in 25 years humans will put out a huge net gain in Co2 admission when compared to what we were putting out.... But still, overall it will be near un-measurable.

You fail.

k thx bye.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can't even show a single scientific theory that is provable on a topic you claim to believe in. A topic that the claims keep "evolving" year to year, yet every time it changes you seem to accept the new revised theory as truth and discard all old beliefs as ok because it was based on science despite that not being the case.

Like I said, you don;t care about fixing the problem, hence the ignoring of my question.

Thats how science works...new info produces new results. There are plenty theories out there the only problem is that you have been programmed to call every one of them fake except for the science from oil scientists because they dont have anything to gain /sarcasm

That is not how science works you moron. You can't claim something to be scientifically proven, demand others agree because there is a "consensus" only to a year later shift to a whole new theory and claim once again consensus.

Once again, you are wrong. You can listen to people who produce theories or listen to your ballsack.

Even theories change


Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change. How? We'll look at some over-arching theories in physics as examples:

Even theories change

Now here is where you fall back to your default position of calling everything fake.

Once again, you avoid the .3% because you know you have no case at all, you simply want to feel knocking back Co2 admission by .03% will be better, despite it not doing anything.

Less Co2 doesnt mean less Co2. Mmm...ok buddy

In fact there are more Co2 admissions now than just 5 or 10 years ago and yet all "global warming" has scientifically been proven to stop. When asked about how this is possible on NPR the guy defending global warming said "we just don't know yet." Meaning it's not science, it's made the fuck up as they go along, "junk science."

Because they are still testing. Here read up so you dont sound like an idiot later

Theory change is a community process of feedback, experiment, observation, and communication. It usually involves interpreting existing data in new ways and incorporating those views with new results. It may depend on a single definitive experiment or observation to change people's views, or it may involve many separate studies, eventually tipping the balance of evidence in favor of the new theory. The process may take some time since scientists don't always recognize good ideas right away, but eventually the scientific explanation that is more accurate will win out. This process of theory change often involves true scientific controversy, which is healthy, sparks additional research, and helps science move forward. True scientific controversy involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported by the available evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further.

There you have it. The reason why theories change and why scientists cant answer every question. Now, what you got? More questions right?

Go to google so you dont look stupid

 

[Vigilante]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Now what you are claiming is that all of these scientists from all of these nations and cultures are in on a gigantic conspiracy to fool the rest of us. Perhaps you should be out buying some more aluminum foil for your little hats.

Well, lying is a good way to start off! List all the Societies that agree! Should be easy as YOU KNOW they all do. And it seems that many of the western nations PAY GRANTS to these universities for this study, now why would scientist STOP the money from coming in?

Oh My!!!!

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis!!!!!

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

You sir, are a horse's ass, but not just any horse's ass, the very dumbest of horse's ass!

I believe this is what you asked for. You're welcome.

Climate Change: Consensus

The following lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

THAT'S ALL OF THEM?????



So in all the world there are only UNDER 200 science organizations....

To start with, you don't have

International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

But here is a list which quite a few are not listed by you

Category:International scientific organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess you were WRONG as to "Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger."

You're welcome!

 

[Vigilante]

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.

Read more: History of the greenhouse effect and global warming

What Grant was he awarded before he came up with his theory?

Well, did you see the word you posted in your sentence MAY?

It was a theory, now please show where there is PROOF CONCLUSIVE of the theory (as I have a link to over 31,000 SCIENTISTS that, each one is MORE QUALIFIED than you on this subject, that disagree)..... More BRAIN DEAD liberals, that only see words that agree with their THEORY, and not the question!

Arrhenius observed that burning fossil fuel emits CO2. He was the first to theorize that it could eventually cause a warming effect.

Therefore your little diddie is just that, a little diddie.

BooBoy, do emit CO2?...Then by all GW theory, YOU are a cause of it!

 

[Nyvin]

So like....there's this planet called Venus, it has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere...it's surface temp is higher then Mercury despite being further away from the sun.

So we know from Venus that CO2 can indeed heat the atmosphere, we know trees reduce CO2, we know burning fossil fuels increases CO2, and we know cutting down trees reduces the number of trees there are.

Let's put all this together now.

 

[DriftingSand]

Adding to the "now" section:

a) Pass new control measures and burdensome laws in an effort to curb American productivity then rake in the dough in regulatory fees, higher taxes, and fines.

b) Stick it to the evil capitalists and force them out of business or to more business-friendly nations overseas.

c) Extend the unemployment benefits to the folks who lost their jobs and get them used to depending on the government to feed and house them. Or hire them to rake leaves in the local parks to make it appear that the government created jobs.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well, did you see the word you posted in your sentence MAY?

It was a theory, now please show where there is PROOF CONCLUSIVE of the theory (as I have a link to over 31,000 SCIENTISTS that, each one is MORE QUALIFIED than you on this subject, that disagree)..... More BRAIN DEAD liberals, that only see words that agree with their THEORY, and not the question!

Arrhenius observed that burning fossil fuel emits CO2. He was the first to theorize that it could eventually cause a warming effect.

Therefore your little diddie is just that, a little diddie.

BooBoy, do emit CO2?...Then by all GW theory, YOU are a cause of it!

Nope. Living organism are part of the carbon cycle. The carbon emitted from what we burn for fuels has been trapped, sequestered and not part of that cycle for millions of years.

Nice try.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats how science works...new info produces new results. There are plenty theories out there the only problem is that you have been programmed to call every one of them fake except for the science from oil scientists because they dont have anything to gain /sarcasm

That is not how science works you moron. You can't claim something to be scientifically proven, demand others agree because there is a "consensus" only to a year later shift to a whole new theory and claim once again consensus.

Once again, you are wrong. You can listen to people who produce theories or listen to your ballsack.



Even theories change

Now here is where you fall back to your default position of calling everything fake.



Less Co2 doesnt mean less Co2. Mmm...ok buddy

In fact there are more Co2 admissions now than just 5 or 10 years ago and yet all "global warming" has scientifically been proven to stop. When asked about how this is possible on NPR the guy defending global warming said "we just don't know yet." Meaning it's not science, it's made the fuck up as they go along, "junk science."

Because they are still testing. Here read up so you dont sound like an idiot later

Theory change is a community process of feedback, experiment, observation, and communication. It usually involves interpreting existing data in new ways and incorporating those views with new results. It may depend on a single definitive experiment or observation to change people's views, or it may involve many separate studies, eventually tipping the balance of evidence in favor of the new theory. The process may take some time since scientists don't always recognize good ideas right away, but eventually the scientific explanation that is more accurate will win out. This process of theory change often involves true scientific controversy, which is healthy, sparks additional research, and helps science move forward. True scientific controversy involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported by the available evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further.

There you have it. The reason why theories change and why scientists cant answer every question. Now, what you got? More questions right?

Go to google so you dont look stupid

I hope Avory wont go around saying stupid shit anymore after being informed of the facts.