patrick.net

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Dan8267 says

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Slow down, there, 'Tard. Tone down the insecure hysteria.

By now even you may have figured out that most of the members of this site are more intelligent than you are. Show some humility, lay off the keyboard and pay attention to what they're saying, instead of lecturing them all day.

It's called "personal growth." Other humans have things to teach you - quite a bit, in your particular case.

Dan8267 says

Now when I expose the lie for what it is, are you man enough to admit you were wrong, that you were duped, and to change your position based on the facts?

In the tradition of all liars, Spurwing is running away now that he's been caught and exposed.

Heraclitusstudent says

For those of us who believe climate change is real: why do we not do anything about it?

For one thing, yeah the impact *now* is virtually 0. Even if you could positively link climate change to some hurricanes, people would still live 99.99% of their lives exactly like they did before. Severe impact will not be there for years, probably 100 years.

Now if you consider what will happen in the next 100 years, I'm honestly not convinced climate change is really the dominant threat.

I would say overpopulation is the dominant threat. The perspective of having 13 billions people on the planet (including 5 in Africa) should give anyone pause. In this 100 years, if history is any guide, you will probably have at least 1 world war. Maybe a massive plagues. Some countries will run out of ground water. Most fish will run out. Lions and elephants will likely go extinct outside of zoos.

Climate change is like the cherry on that cake.

Also remember, If we were using o...

Well, 13 billion people on the planet will certainly speed up climate change tenfold as well.

Why people don't believe in climate science ?
Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?
Because they're idiots.

BlueSardine @ 4

Your second chart,do notice a problem with it?
Does anyone else?
This is your homework this weekend.

SimonRuszczak says

Why people don't believe in climate science ?

Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?

Because they're idiots.

Anyone who thinks that climate change caused by mass pollution is a cultural or politically motivate issue is a fucking retard who deserves no respect. Anyone who dismisses literally thousands of lines of independent evidence that all say the same thing confirmed by tens of thousands of scientists around the world is simply either a pathological liar or a moron of the highest degree. Either way such a person should not respected and should get no say in any policy regarding any domain.

The price of having your opinion on policy considered is adherence to reality.

Hater says

The real questions are:

Did humans cause it?

Yes. At least part of it.

Is it catastrophic?

Probably, but it's not clear how long it will take. Depends on your definition of catastrophic

Can humans do anything about it?

Of course. There are plenty of options, and everyone knows this.

Will humans do anything about it?

They will do something. Not as much as they would if they fully understood the problem.

Hater says

The real questions are:

Did humans cause it?

Yes, absolutely, the evidence is clear on this.

Is it catastrophic?

If left unchecked, also definitely. We're talking tens of millions of deaths, wars, terrorism, and the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate along the U.S. coastline alone.

Can humans do anything about it?

Of course. There are a great many things we can do to mitigate climate change and other problems of pollution. We can ban coal. We can implement carbon and methane taxes. We can restrict or limit many other forms of pollution. We can stop subsidizing fossil fuels. We can invest in hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy. We can decentralize energy production. We can phase out gasoline cars. We can adopt cap and trade. We can sign the Kyoto Protocol and similar international agreements.

Will humans do anything about it?

Only if deniers are made out to be the liars they are and we give them no voice in policy. The price of having influence is adherence to the truth. The stakes are simply too high to allow those with bad intentions to influence policy.

Hater says

The science is not settled until most of these questions are answered about it.

That's bullshit. The debunked lie that the science isn't settled, the same lie told by cigarette companies regarding lung cancer, sole purpose is to prevent action from being taken. The science is settled and anyone claiming that it hasn't been settled for over two decades should get zero voice in dealing with the problem for the exact same reason you don't let Holocaust deniers have any say over whether or not Israel gets to exist.

Hater says

It being global warming climate change.

This is another lie told by people with purely bad intentions. Global warming was not renamed to climate change because the Earth isn't warming. Anyone who even attempts to suggest that the term was renamed for deceptive reasons is a lying scumbag.

A new term was adopted for a simple, clear, and noble reason. Global warming is only one of the properties of climate change. Rising sea levels is another. Mass extinction is another effect. Floods and droughts are another. All these things are related, but dumb ass conservatives couldn't understand why warmer weather is a bad things. After all, if they aren't physically uncomfortable, what possible danger could there be. Oh wait, super-fucking-tornadoes. Because conservatives are too stupid to make the connection between rising temperature and various other effects, the broader term climate change was adopted. And the term climate change includes global warming. There is no deception by using the broader term.

There is, however, great deception in suggesting the term was changed to cover up lies. Anyone makes such a suggestion is a shill.

There's another thing that's been increasing rapidly, especially since the 19th Century, besides CO2, and in tandem with Industrialization.

But if you mention this, some AGW people freak the fuck out.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

There's another thing that's been increasing rapidly, especially since the 19th Century, besides CO2, and in tandem with Industrialization.

You mean population? Yes, that also needs to be controlled. Species that reproduce beyond the carrying capacity of the environment experience mass die-offs when the environment gets depleted and the carry capacity plummets until the environment recovers hundreds of years or even tens of thousands of years later.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

and the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate along the U.S. coastline alone.

It was overpriced anyway.

Anyone who is OK with such a great loss of homes and businesses clearly does not give a shit about the economy. Uncontrolled climate change greatly harms the economy.

Hater says

The name was changed because the earth was not warming as fast as predicted.

Another easily debunked lie. Who should you believe, some Internet troll with obviously bad intentions or NASA? I'll go with NASA.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Real world evidence contradicts everything Hater said. As any discussion requires some adherence to evidence and real-world facts, Hater's will no longer be allowed to spread debunked propaganda on my threads. He can bitch and moan about this in his own threads.

We do not leave in a post-fact society and fake news, fake facts, and pseudoscience will not be tolerates. You can express any political preference you want, but you cannot express any reality you want. There is only one reality, and no fruitful conversation can be had with those who care not for reality.

Dan8267 says

We can ban coal. We can implement carbon and methane taxes. We can restrict or limit many other forms of pollution. We can stop subsidizing fossil fuels. We can invest in hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy. We can decentralize energy production. We can phase out gasoline cars. We can adopt cap and trade. We can sign the Kyoto Protocol and similar international agreements.

That would be awesome. It will happen, and a lot faster than anyone thinks. The cost of alternative energy is plummeting like a rock. In a few years it will cost a penny a mile to drive an electric car. Right now it's 4 cents a mile, except in high cost California.

jazz music says

Saudis oversupplying world markets with oil now have destabilized Russia and have thrown Venezuela into crisis.

So sad isn't it? When alternative energy completely displaces all fossil fuels you will be gushing with tears.

Dan8267 says

As any discussion requires some adherence to evidence and real-world facts, Hater's will no longer be allowed to spread debunked propaganda on my threads.

Amen.

Dan8267 says

What I do about climate change is

1. Debunk lies told by idiot deniers.

2. Promote solutions like a carbon tax and methane tax, which I would gladly pay as long as it's universal.

3. Promote removing all subsidies for fossil fuels and replacing them with subsidies for clean energy.

These are material policy changes that would greatly help solve the problem, or at least mitigate the consequences of it. Symbolic gestures are meaningless bullshit. You are treating climate change as if it's a cultural war rather than a serious and material problem. And that makes you a fool.

By taking one less airline flight per year, you would have a greater impact on GW reduction than your 3 talking points.

Why do all Libs continue to deny reality?

komputodo says

By taking one less airline flight per year, you would have a greater impact on GW reduction than your 3 talking points.

I doubt that, especially since most years I don't even take one flight. How exactly does one take a negative number of flights?

Dan8267 says

I doubt that, especially since most years I don't even take one flight. How exactly does one take a negative number of flights?

convince a friend not to take one.

One thing environmentalists must do is embrace molten salt nuclear plants.

Any environmentalist who refuses is an impractical, unreasonable ideologue. There's no feasible or economic pathway to carbon neutral energy without nuclear.

Hater demonstrates the original post extensively in his recent thread.