Which conservatives duckbear?
The name just misleads stupid people. It happens a lot.
Climate change doesn't require individual weather events as evidence. Likewise, evolution doesn't require individual species.
Lokarin posted...
Climate change doesn't require individual weather events as evidence. Likewise, evolution doesn't require individual species.
But they dont believe in either, so theyd just ignore your argument
If I keep telling myself the sky is yellow it must be true right?
Not unless you have observable or demonstrable evidence to back up your claim.
Far-Queue posted...
Not unless you have observable or demonstrable evidence to back up your claim.
Well global warming is indeed real. My point was some folk are so brainwashed that even with proof of something they will still say it's not real and continue to believe their own bullshit.
Embarrassment, lol, we are doing pretty good right now. He may put his foot in his mouth here and there, but objectively speaking, we are doing very good right now
I don't get how it could even be a question. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're pumping it into the atmosphere. why *wouldn't* that have an effect? I mean, we're literally terraforming the planet. you want to warm up a planet, that's how you do it.
Isn't it true that the earth constantly goes through periods of warming and cooling? If it is true then is there any point in debating climate change? Or is the argument that the current warming trend is caused by our own carbon emissions? If so is there actual evidence supporting this?
Yes, the argument is that were making it far worse than it needs to be. To the point we could make the planet inhospitable to ourselves.
Oh, I dunno, a consensus of around 98% it scientists that study it say its rising much faster than previous cycles.
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument. It's usually just accepted as a given.
Zeus posted...
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument. It's usually just accepted as a given.
Literally admits he doesn't understand how the basics of climate change works but still denies it.
Zeus posted...
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument. It's usually just accepted as a given.
Literally admits he doesn't understand how the basics of climate change works but still denies it.
Blightzkrieg posted...
Zeus posted...
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument. It's usually just accepted as a given.
Literally admits he doesn't understand how the basics of climate change works but still denies it.
Literally can't explain it but just accepts it anyway then accuses other people of denying it.
Vibrational frequencies of molecules, infrared light, adsorption and emission of light, bingo bango bongo
It honestly doesn't matter if I understand it (even though I've been studying it for years) because you literally just argued that it doesn't count because you don't understand it
It's the single dumbest thing I've ever seen you say, and I make a habit of reading your posts because you're the single dumbest poster I've ever seen.
A claim demonstrated how?
Except I never said the latter
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument.
Coming from a guy who I frequently wonder if he can read in the first place -- case-in-point being here -- that doesn't mean much.
Zeus posted...
A claim demonstrated how?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy
Zeus posted...
Except I never said the latter
Zeus posted...
In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument.
Zeus posted...
Coming from a guy who I frequently wonder if he can read in the first place -- case-in-point being here -- that doesn't mean much.
Control+F in article:
"Carbon dioxide not found"
"Climate not found"
If you were trying to demonstrate that you can't read, kudos, sir, you've done it.
Zeus posted...
Control+F in article:
"Carbon dioxide not found"
"Climate not found"
I was under the impression you were asking for the basics of how this works. That's pretty much the fundamentals of infrared adsorption and emission. Literally everybody and their dog knows the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide isn't magic, it works the same way as other molecules.
Zeus posted...
If you were trying to demonstrate that you can't read, kudos, sir, you've done it.
You made the allegation that the link between carbon dioxide and warming is purely correlational.
Zeus talks about politics yet doesn't know what a left leaning centrist is, talks about global warming yet doesn't know what the greenhouse effect is, talks about what he said yet doesn't have a firm grasp of the english language (not surprising given Russian is his first).
The only topics you should post in are Last Week Tonight topics, given that's the only thing you seem to possess a working knowledge of.
Conservatives are harping at the fact that because it's cold and snowing where they are that it proves that global warming isn't real...do you agree with that? let's see if people do.
https://localtvwnep.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/s070636307-300.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=770&strip=all
Its the same as liberals stating that its 'hot' this year, so it proves global warming exists.
Its the same as liberals stating that its 'hot' this year, so it proves global warming exists.
it was 'global cooling' in the 70s
I was asking the basics of the determination. I haven't seen anything that suggests that this is the determination. Every video and article I've been linked to about climate change has skipped the step where it shows the science for determining carbon dioxide's link to heat, instead relying on correlation.
Yes, the argument is that were making it far worse than it needs to be. To the point we could make the planet inhospitable to ourselves.
Not a realistic concern regarding climate change. While rising water would force some human settlements would need to move, it would mostly just redraw the shorelines assuming that things like levees aren't built. Keep in mind that New Orleans has been under sea level for ages.
Smarkil posted...
Which conservatives duckbear?