Poll of the Day > Conservatives say it's SNOWING where they are so Global Warming is FAKE...

(+) Yeah! (+)

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
---

Climate change doesn't require individual weather events as evidence. Likewise, evolution doesn't require individual species.
---

Which conservatives duckbear?
---

Smarkil posted...

Which conservatives duckbear?

---

The name just misleads stupid people. It happens a lot.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The name just misleads stupid people. It happens a lot.

And trying to call it "climate change" to confuse them less results in those same stupid people claiming the goalposts are being moved.
---

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
---

PK_Spam posted...

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

Well, ignorant people tend to ignore evidence. Guess that'd be par for the course.
---

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?
---

If I keep telling myself the sky is yellow it must be true right?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

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.

But Ive seen shades of yellow in the sky. At sunset, sunrise, and during certain weather events. Never seen a wholly yellow sky, though.
---

The people that say this are just as stupid as the people who say "omg another hurricane see global warming"

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.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

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.

Tell me about it. Our embarrassment of a President is one of those people.
---

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

continent sized ice glaciers are breaking off the shelves, floating into warm waters and dispersing tons of extra water in the air

to say global warming isn't real is to deny a literal mountain of evidence
---

not__shawn__z posted...

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

and CORPORATIONS are people too right?
---

What do you MEAN?

Obama's slogan was "Change". So why leftists so afraid of a little climate change?
---

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.
---

Sahuagin posted...

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.

I'll bite. For most people who aren't aboard the word is ending climate change hysteria, that isn't their argument. They aren't arguing that global warming/global cooling/climate change/whatever name it is today isn't real. Change is the only constant in the universe. Of course the climate changes. The argument basically boils down to 2 things 1) how much of it is natural vs from us 2) our solutions to this problem are stupid and nonsensical (Paris accord)

kind9 posted...

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, which is why we're panicking when glaciers are melting away and revealing things like viking settlements. In general, though, one camp is blaming the bulk of changes on human activity while the other is pointing out that it's either natural or the data is being distorted.

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.

Zangulus posted...

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.

Zangulus posted...

Oh, I dunno, a consensus of around 98% it scientists that study it say its rising much faster than previous cycles.

That's the commonly misstated version parroted by the media. The actual working is something along the lines of, "97% of climate change scientists who took a position on climate change found that human activity is contributing to climate change" but some of the scientists who were cited claimed that their work was misrepresented.

Humorously, Jon Oliver -- one of the loudest parrots who once marched out 97 people he purported to be scientists to illustrate it -- has hypocritically insisted on other subjects that getting 97% of people to agree on anything makes it bullshit.
---

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.

Zeus parrots whatever the elder GOP alphas say, he's a frail old beta, ok?
---

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.
---

Zeus posted...

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.

What a classic beta response from @Zeus, ok?
---

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.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Vibrational frequencies of molecules, infrared light, adsorption and emission of light, bingo bango bongo

A claim demonstrated how?

Blightzkrieg posted...

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

Except I never said the latter and, in the case of the former, it literally DOES matter if you're supporting something without understanding it (and, quite frankly, it doesn't sound like you understand it at all). In fact, you have it completely backwards.

Blightzkrieg posted...

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.

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.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Zeus posted...

A claim demonstrated how?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

Control+F in article:
"Carbon dioxide not found"
"Climate not found"

Nor I can recall that ever coming up as an explanation. Which isn't to say that it might not be the explanation, but that it's weird that if it was that nobody would bring it up.

Blightzkrieg posted...

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.

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.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

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.

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.

Blightzkrieg posted...

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.

The problem is more *your* understanding (or lack thereof) than mine. You clearly don't understand what a left-leaning centrist is, especially considering that political test after political test has put me there yet you insist the contrary. On global warming, I've offered clarification than you have -- including clarifying the misstated "98% of scientists" which you had just let pass -- and pointed out flaws in the talking points. And finally, you either purposefully or ignorantly misinterpreted what I said then used it to draw your own conclusions yet choose to blame your libel or mistake upon me.

I would counter with a witty retort about the only topics you should post in, but I have yet to witness you demonstrate expertise in *any* subject so I can't really offer anything.
---

Zeus can't comprehend climate change, shocking, ok?
---

mrduckbear posted...

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.

Two sides of the same coin.

That said, its no longer 'global warming,' now its 'climate change.' I wonder when the next time it is called something different is... it was 'global cooling' in the 70s. I guess it just depends on where the money is for greedy 'green' supporters.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Its the same as liberals stating that its 'hot' this year, so it proves global warming exists.

I work in Hollywood, but never heard anyone say that, calling bull, ok?
---

It's going to be one degree tomorrow morning when I have to walk a mile into work tomorrow. Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical or hell, welcoming of global warming at the moment.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Its the same as liberals stating that its 'hot' this year, so it proves global warming exists.

the correct claim is more something like that there hasn't been a single below average world temperature month since February 1985.

MaverickXeo posted...

it was 'global cooling' in the 70s

IIRC there was some small amount of global cooling in the 70s caused by pollution. all three terms are valid. "climate change" or similar phrases have been around since at least the 50s.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Zeus posted...

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.

you're probably being intentionally vague and obtuse but otherwise this may be relevant

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

to anyone actually interested in this, potholer54's videos are highly recommended

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
---

Zangulus posted...

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.

Venus jr. is an incredibly unlikely scenario. Muggy World is vastly more likely, as a water vapor feedback loop kicks in.

Zeus posted...

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.

That's not a climate change thing. That's largely caused by the refusal to let the Mississippi river change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure
Plus there's the problem of building your city in a swamp, then suddenly realizing swamps are wet. Sucking water out of a swamp means everything that's left (dirt and rocks) sinks, due to simple gravity and most of the mass and volume (of the water) no longer being there.

Clearly it's not global then.
---

Zeus posted...

Smarkil posted...

Which conservatives duckbear?

Literally the POTUS https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/568387798924963840?lang=en

and let us not forget james inhofe