Tornadoes in Winter. Yeah. Ok, now tell me global warming isn't happening. Sea ice in the arctic disappearing. It's all too mindglaringly obvious to even talk about, really. People who refuse to look at the science and see that it's actually happening (despite what the so-called scientific critics who are largely paid by the Oil Industry are saying) should really just be ridiculed as the tards that they are. This will only become more apparent as time goes on.
I had some things I wanted to say about the whole Hillary vs. Obama thing, which I was thinking about as I was in the shower today. Unfortunately, I forget the specifics of what they were. But I'll say this. I'm not voting for Hillary. No matter what. Well, I know. Never say never. But voting for her would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
I had some things I wanted to say about the whole Hillary vs. Obama thing, which I was thinking about as I was in the shower today. Unfortunately, I forget the specifics of what they were. But I'll say this. I'm not voting for Hillary. No matter what. Well, I know. Never say never. But voting for her would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
posted by Peter at 3:45 PM
5 Comments:
Actually, tornadoes in winter are not uncommon, especially from where I come. As far back as I can remember, winters were much warmer than they are now. Of course, GLOBAL warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere on the planet. Did you know that the average global temperature is approximately only 60 degrees?
Yeah...
I'm not a tard as far as I know.
I'm not paid by the oil industry.
In fact, I'm teaching my students how to read graphs and data so they can interpret the information for themselves.
The planet is getting warmer, depending on which numbers you use.
Is it supposed to happen? Aren't we due for an ice age and doesn't the planet always warm up beforehand, melting the ice, changing the ocean currents, changing the weather patterns, starting an ice age?
I'm just curious about what you think the "cause" of global warming is. Are people the evil, masterminds of this? I'd like to hear you point of view and see the data you use to back it up.
P.S. - I'm writing my candidate in because there's a good chance he won't get the party nomination.
I got this one, man.
The Earth is getting warmer. This isn’t based on ‘what numbers you use,” that’s an excuse used by people who want to ignore or, worse, lie about numbers. So far every single measure we have for gauging the earth’s temperature, from tree core samples to ice melt off to collected ocean temperature to sea levels to comparative collected records like the Farmer’s Almanac show a mean increase in world temperature. It’s not debatable, which is why those who would like to debate it have had to retreat from a “there is no global warming,” stance to a, “it’s not peoples’ fault,” stance.
But as for evidence of whether or not people are causing or at least influencing climate change, I’m still curious why the greenhouse gases science we all have had crammed down our throats is so readily ignored. It’s hardly the only science out there, but neither is it dismissible, and yet, when you ask people to present what compels them to suspect a human element, you are pretending this data has, in fact, been dismissed.
The argument is ridiculously simple, actually. Humanity has, for some time been indulging in complex chemical conversions not found commonly in nature on a grand scale. In many of these cases, we put that right into our atmosphere. Those best trained to study the effects of various chemicals on light and weather have, in large majority the world over, come to the same conclusion, that it could easily cause a consistent warming effect on the planet. As an example of a prediction made by those who first noticed these trends, accelerated ice cap melt off world wide is one that came true based on the science. So actually, leaning towards accepting global warming is exceptionally easy.
The real question is, what about all of this evidence evokes skepticism. It’s always good to have an open mind and to explore and even challenge convictions, but to actually embrace skepticism intelligently requires a reasoned argument, and I have yet to see a single one demonstrating, rationally, why the earth isn’t warming or why a human element wouldn’t be involved.
Alas, skepticism is rarely the result of genuine interest or reason. It is instead, typically politically motivated. This doesn’t mean that you’re a republican lackey, per se, it simply means that your reasons for doubt are not based on a problem with any science you’ve been presented. Instead, you choose to doubt because the conclusions that science reaches are contrary to something you’d prefer to believe.
When people began challenging evolution and DNA, we saw the same behavior. Their reason for skepticism was never a problem with the science, but a problem with the results. They didn’t want to believe what they were being told, so they refused it. They then struggled and scrounged to find holes in the evolution theory, a struggle that goes on today and can be seen for what it is by the weak and changing nature of their arguments. Those who have legitimate problems with a scientific conclusion present, at the outset, coherent scientific challenges which remain consistent and stable. People who’s skepticism is instead socially motivated merely look for ways to ignore the science, like screaming about Piltdown man or complaining that since they can’t figure out the ‘eye’, it couldn’t have evolved.
We saw the same problems with the Flat Earthers. Again, the facts challenged their already existing social viewpoint, so they challenged the conclusions of science, not the argument, and not based on any flaw they’d discovered, but a refusal to accept. And their arguments were of the same chaotic and simple variety, picking at the fringes of the idea instead of challenging it directly, and cast aside without a single shift in their viewpoint when proven useless. And we see the same behavior from people who are struggling with global warming. They don’t present coherent arguments for why global warming wouldn’t be happening, or why it might not be caused by human activity. They scrounge around looking for tiny holes in data, hoping that that alone will somehow conquer the whole of the idea. Their own arguments and stance shift radically as one apologetic line after another is closed off by reason and facts.
So I have to wonder, with all the clear evidence supporting global warming, why does it, but not so many other scientific conclusions you’re no better suited to challenge, earn skepticism when the others are accepted? What arguments, if any, do you have to demonstrate independently that the earth might not be warming, or that there might be no human element in that warming? What about mean temperatures, ice caps, what we know about various carbon gases, much less the conclusions of literally hundreds of thousands of scientists from over 120 independent nations do you have a reason to be skeptical of, when you’re not skeptical of so much else?
Xeno, were you directing those questions at me? I didn't mean to come off as much of a skeptic as your questions lead me to think. I don't think that I have ever actually said that the planet isn't getting warmer. It's just that I'm leading my AP students in learning about the plethora of suggested causes for global warming and I'm interested in seeing if anyone has anything different than what the students have managed to dig up. I have my own list of sources and information, but I haven't shared it with the students because I'm waiting to see what they ultimately come up with. I didn't really mean to open such a big can of worms when I was really just being silly.
Oops.
You did give me some food for thought, though.
Sorry, when you defended yourself as 'not a tard', I took that to mean you took a particular stance, namely the one that Pete had just alluded to as "tarded". I apologize if I seemed too 'het up' but I do get that way...
For me, while I think that the human environmental impact can't be ignored as a factor, my personal favorite hypothesis is the movement of our solar system through gas clouds. When we're in thick gas clouds, things are naturally colder, when we move out of them, things start to warm up.
Along those same lines, did anyone read about how they've shown a possible correspondance to many mass extinctions with points when our solar system would be 'furthest to the outside' of our galaxy, thus exposing the planet to more deadly cosmic rays than usual? It may not be meteors or volcanoes or weather at all, but simply mysterious, deadly radiation from other galaxies!
Well, I just don't have the energy to contribute much after staying up half the night with Jack (he's sick). So I'll just say pretty much ditto everything Mike said.
Post a Comment
<< Home