Post: #401

Even if 'global warming' was a thing, it would still beg the question as to why academics and gov'ts have to lie and exaggerate to prove it was real. Also a mystery is how will transferring trillions of $ of wealth to third-world corruptocrats solve the problem - if indeed it is actually a problem, also not explained.
The programming has not yet been developed to include any kind of coherent answer to these points.

Post: #402

The "global warming" debate has never been about whether there has been some warming caused by man's activities. Yes, there has been. The real debate has always been "should the government engage in massive regulation and carbon tax schemes without any evidence that the opportunity cost will be less than adjustment to actual climate realities as they play out".

But that's another topic.

Post: #403

(10-23-2018 02:01 PM)RawGod Wrote:  The "global warming" debate has never been about whether there has been some warming caused by man's activities. Yes, there has been. The real debate has always been "should the government engage in massive regulation and carbon tax schemes without any evidence that the opportunity cost will be less than adjustment to actual climate realities as they play out".

But that's another topic.

It's clear that humans affect the climate (of course we do, it's a closed system), it is not clear whether it is any significant factor.

Those people that are crying about the planet and wanting to save it are all for globohomo plans to let 3rd world countries continue to pollute hugely and dump massive amounts of waste into our oceans while making 1st world countries pay for it.

You rarely hear about these globohomo groups or your average liberal being for any kind of enforcement towards 3rd world countries or things like re-growing our rain forests, one of the biggest detriments to the planet that there is.

Post: #404

(10-23-2018 01:48 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Can science prove that "global warming" is caused by man's activities?

No it cannot, as it an observational, not testable science.

Sorry bud.

Scientists use the best tools they have. Empirical measurements show that the industrial revolution has caused a huge spike in global carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. It has ranged from 150 to 250 parts per million in the past 500 thousand years, yet as of April 2018 it is at 410 parts per million - which makes complete sense, based on our release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Then we have miniature models that clearly show the greenhouse effect - this has been known for nearly 200 years, since 1824. Global Warming caused by a global greenhouse effect makes complete sense, and this is indeed what we're seeing as far as the global average temperature goes - again, empirical evidence.

This is bad, but its really nothing compared to what might happen in the next 20-30 years: a runaway greenhouse effect occurs if positive feedbacks lead to the evaporation of all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - especially methane, which is 30 times more potent than CO2. And methane emissions will leap as Earth warms, including those from frozen tundras - released in "booms". When that happens is when you'll have NO doubt whatsoever that Global Climate Change is real, but it will be way too late by then.

To be fair, it probably is too late anyways. The developing world will want everything that the developed world has - private cars, daily meat consumption, consumer culture. We're talking about billions of people - and they won't agree to cut down on comforts. The heart wants what the heart wants.. and so, our modern world is doomed. It will be cut down and made into something else, full of many new hardships and way less wonders for our descendants to enjoy.

As for science not being able to "prove" that Global Climate Change is caused by man's activities - you could say that same about the theory of evolution, most of modern physics, etc. Mathematics is by definition "unprovable" without making some axiomatic assumptions. Do you also doubt these things?

I don't want to make this into a Climate Change debate thread, so I suggest we stop here (I will). I just find it hilarious that people here would claim that the vast majority of scientists are NPCs, and that there's no way that they're wrong.

How was it that Syberpunk said, earlier in this thread?

(10-11-2018 12:18 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The biggest NPC trait by a light year is the unwillingness to accept the fact that maybe just maybe you are wrong...in other words to have humility, to think not less of yourself, but to think of yourself less, and ruminate on the world at large.

Post: #405

Look how the NPC repeats the line:

"This is true and is consensus."

What it really means is "This is true BECAUSE it is consensus". That's how they are programmed.

It doesn't really matter if the consensus is 51% or 99% or if it's not even consensus but it just seems that way due to the information they recieve. (There were no actual links to any evidence.)

It's also telling how they are programmed to believe "global warming = bad" even if that global warming works out to 1 degree over 100 years.

A player character sees a fact like; "There was a 1 degree increase in global temperature over 100 years." and has thoughts like:

How does that compare to other periods of time?
How has the temperature been changing over 500 or 1000 years?
Is that actually bad or good?
Or with such a small increase is it completely insignificant?

An NPC sees the same fact and 'thinks':

1 degree temperature increase over 100 years = slightly warmer than the last century, more evidence of global warming
global warming = bad thing that will eventually kill us all
1 degree temperature rise over 100 years = bad thing that will eventually kill us all.

Post: #406

(10-23-2018 01:55 PM)ed pluribus unum Wrote:  a mystery is how will transferring trillions of $ of wealth to third-world corruptocrats solve the problem

Because the developing world wants what the developed world has, and it is going to get it. Cars, daily meat consumption, huge factories, global tourism, etc.

Just look at China. India is booming too. You'll see the same in some African nations in the coming 30 years, and maybe Brazil/Russia again. We're talking about HUGE population of people, getting modern commodities and luxuries.

This will cause a HUGE spike in CO2 release and general environmental pollution. I mean, that just makes sense, right?

The point of the 1st-world pitching in to help the 2nd and 3rd-world is to create a motivation and incentive for these countries to emphasize public transportation over private cars, to emphasize clean energy over coal and oil, to emphasize technological breakthroughs for food generation instead of cutting down more forests for more grazing grounds, etc.

Yes, the 1st world pays and suffers for that. But you can't only look at that - you have to look at the alternative, and at the expected value of each path taken. The 1st world will suffer WAY more if it lets Climate Change grow even more rampant. Food shortages, flooding, desertification, natural disasters... and of course, the disruption of agricultural and commodity industries. This is called - the Tragedy of the Commons.

I hope you understand the reasoning why. But whatever. This is probably a done deal anyways, we're past the moment of being able to truly turn the tide. Better just enjoy life as much as you can, now, and wish your descendants good luck.

Post: #407

(10-23-2018 02:17 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:01 PM)RawGod Wrote:  The "global warming" debate has never been about whether there has been some warming caused by man's activities. Yes, there has been. The real debate has always been "should the government engage in massive regulation and carbon tax schemes without any evidence that the opportunity cost will be less than adjustment to actual climate realities as they play out".

But that's another topic.

It's clear that humans affect the climate (of course we do, it's a closed system), it is not clear whether it is any significant factor.

Those people that are crying about the planet and wanting to save it are all for globohomo plans to let 3rd world countries continue to pollute hugely and dump massive amounts of waste into our oceans while making 1st world countries pay for it.

You rarely hear about these globohomo groups or your average liberal being for any kind of enforcement towards 3rd world countries or things like re-growing our rain forests, one of the biggest detriments to the planet that there is.

Ding ding ding!

Noone wants to talk shit on China, Indan, and South East Asia.

Post: #408

I had a realization some years ago about this NPC business. Not quite the same, but similar. I realized that a lot of people I was interacting with, listening to, they were not so much talking using language, but merely exchanging cliches.

At the time I took this to be a function of this particular language, a dumbed down, faux-familiarity, which plagues some areas of Europe.

Like, you could usually predict a conversation pattern, if you knew the original input. Why? Because people were not so much using language, as in words carrying intent and meaning, as they were acting out a script given a set of cliches in the form of sentences.

An example: Sportsball talk, in which fan A of team A says something mock derogatory about team B, in which fan B is expected to reply with a mock indignation and a comeback. Fairly formulaic stuff, not bad in itself as a cohesion building exercise.

These cliches had in time turned into composite cliches, so that if one person used one such cliche, it was socially expected that you reply with a choice of a few other cliches.

Again, these things have their uses, such as pleasantries, when engaging with strangers. How are you? Fine, thank you and so on.

The problem I noticed is that these kind of cliched topics and responses began becoming endemic. People almost seemed unable to actually put words together, that hadn't already been formulated for them.

This is the dumbing down of language, most likely being aped by NPCs from the TV/politician speak, which is exactly not real language, but a sharade of acceptable cliches.

Post: #409

(10-23-2018 02:19 PM)isracolo Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 01:48 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Can science prove that "global warming" is caused by man's activities?

No it cannot, as it an observational, not testable science.

Sorry bud.

As for science not being able to "prove" that Global Climate Change is caused by man's activities - you could say that same about the theory of evolution, most of modern physics, etc. Mathematics is by definition "unprovable" without making some axiomatic assumptions. Do you also doubt these things?

If unable to challenge argument, run: "changethesubject.exe"

Has the climate changed in the past significantly due to the natural causes?

So does the climate change naturally?

OK, so how much of this current climate is change is natural and how much is down to human activity? 0.1%? 1% 100%?

If you don't know, is there a way to measure this accurately using science?

Quote:I don't want to make this into a Climate Change debate thread, so I suggest we stop here (I will). I just find it hilarious that people here would claim that the vast majority of scientists are NPCs, and that there's no way that they're wrong.

How was it that Syberpunk said, earlier in this thread?

(10-11-2018 12:18 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The biggest NPC trait by a light year is the unwillingness to accept the fact that maybe just maybe you are wrong...in other words to have humility, to think not less of yourself, but to think of yourself less, and ruminate on the world at large.

If accused of being an NPC run: "noyouareanNPC.exe"

Post: #410

(10-23-2018 02:30 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  Look how the NPC repeats the line:

"This is true and is consensus."

What it really means is "This is true BECAUSE it is consensus". That's how they are programmed.

It doesn't really matter if the consensus is 51% or 99% or if it's not even consensus but it just seems that way due to the information they recieve. (There were no actual links to any evidence.)

It's also telling how they are programmed to believe "global warming = bad" even if that global warming works out to 1 degree over 100 years.

A player character sees a fact like; "There was a 1 degree increase in global temperature over 100 years." and has thoughts like:

How does that compare to other periods of time?
How has the temperature been changing over 500 or 1000 years?
Is that actually bad or good?
Or with such a small increase is it completely insignificant?

An NPC sees the same fact and 'thinks':

1 degree temperature increase over 100 years = slightly warmer than the last century, more evidence of global warming
global warming = bad thing that will eventually kill us all
1 degree temperature rise over 100 years = bad thing that will eventually kill us all.

I'll skip your condescending ad hominem NPC name calling. I'll just refer you again to Syberpunk's quote:

(10-11-2018 12:18 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The biggest NPC trait by a light year is the unwillingness to accept the fact that maybe just maybe you are wrong...in other words to have humility, to think not less of yourself, but to think of yourself less, and ruminate on the world at large.

As for the points you made:

1. Scientific consensus is not a general consensus. We're not talking about a group of forum dwellers that are in agreement about something, that is not the general consensus I am talking about. We're talking about the most appropriately educated and well suited people on the face of the Earth to comment about this issue. A consensus of scientists that deal with this specific matter. Who would believe over them? Please, do share with me your thoughts.

"There was a 1 degree increase in global temperature over 100 years"
2. How does that compare to other periods of time? How has the temperature been changing over 500 or 1000 years?
1 degree Celsius warmer than the 20th century, which is insane. Better yet, the warmest it has been in all of modern human history. 13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century. Have a look.
But hey, If I were to use your terms, I'd say that an NPC would only look at temperatures though, and not at temperature trends which are extreme and extremely clear - a huge increase in year by ear warming.
Also, if I were an NPC, I wouldn't bother looking at atomspheric CO2 levels which are the highest they've been in 420 thousand years (and probably much, much more). I'd look at what we've done in the 20th and 21st century. I'd read a little about about the greenhouse effect, and I'd note that empirical evidence supports all of this.

3. Is that actually bad or good? Or with such a small increase is it completely insignificant?
As I've shown above, it is not insignificant and we already see the results of it, for example - coral bleaching. I dive and love the sea, so that matters to me. But I guess the ecologic systems and nature don't matter as much to some, so how about these assessments regarding the effect of this climate change, for the U.S.?

Quote:Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third3 and Fourth4 National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

The effects will be much greater in China, India, Africa, South America. You'll see many, many more refugees flocking to first world countries. Is it not in your interest to prevent, at the very least, that?

--

It is mind boggling to me that you are so certain of yourself, that you are a "Playable Character", when you ignore scientific consensus and clear empirical evidence.

Post: #411

I see Al Gore is still alive and well!

Post: #412

(10-23-2018 02:55 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:19 PM)isracolo Wrote:  As for science not being able to "prove" that Global Climate Change is caused by man's activities - you could say that same about the theory of evolution, most of modern physics, etc. Mathematics is by definition "unprovable" without making some axiomatic assumptions. Do you also doubt these things?

If unable to challenge argument, run: "changethesubject.exe"

LOL! You cherry-picked one sentence out of a long message challenging the argument
Great debate skills.

--

As for your questions:

1. Has the climate changed in the past significantly due to the natural causes?
Yes, it has.

2. So does the climate change naturally?
Yes, it does.

3. OK, so how much of this current climate is change is natural and how much is down to human activity? 0.1%? 1% 100%? If you don't know, is there a way to measure this accurately using science?
The change is close to 100% due to human activity. Natural change in a century has not gotten close to the levels it has gone through in the past 100 years.
Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

--

(10-23-2018 02:55 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

Quote:How was it that Syberpunk said, earlier in this thread?

(10-11-2018 12:18 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The biggest NPC trait by a light year is the unwillingness to accept the fact that maybe just maybe you are wrong...in other words to have humility, to think not less of yourself, but to think of yourself less, and ruminate on the world at large.

If accused of being an NPC run: "noyouareanNPC.exe"

Is that not exactly what you're doing with your last message?

Post: #413

(10-23-2018 03:02 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I see Al Gore is still alive and well!

Damn! You got me. Better get back to inventing the newest version of the internet.
Gonna get back to lurking. Bye

Post: #414

(10-23-2018 02:19 PM)isracolo Wrote:  Scientists use the best tools they have. Empirical measurements show that the industrial revolution has caused a huge spike in global carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. It has ranged from 150 to 250 parts per million in the past 500 thousand years, yet as of April 2018 it is at 410 parts per million - which makes complete sense, based on our release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Then we have miniature models that clearly show the greenhouse effect - this has been known for nearly 200 years, since 1824. Global Warming caused by a global greenhouse effect makes complete sense, and this is indeed what we're seeing as far as the global average temperature goes - again, empirical evidence.

According to hacks like Al Gore and other capable but dishonest scientists; places like my hometown, New York, Netherlands and even the fucking Arctic were supposed to be drowned years ago, yet nothing even remotely close to that happened.

How can you explain that kind of shit away?
You think CNN and NYT polls are hard facts too? because statistics and polling isn't some soft science bullshit and the MSM definitely had capable personnel at their disposal over the 2016 elections

I don't care how high IQ and knowledgeable someone is, if what they say doesn't match reality they are full of shit, period.

About the NASA scientists, reality is not idealistic.
They could get things wrong in so many different ways.
Personally, I think it was dishonesty, political influence and confirmation bias,
but either way these guys lied.

(10-23-2018 02:19 PM)isracolo Wrote:  As for science not being able to "prove" that Global Climate Change is caused by man's activities - you could say that same about the theory of evolution, most of modern physics, etc. Mathematics is by definition "unprovable" without making some axiomatic assumptions. Do you also doubt these things?

I don't want to make this into a Climate Change debate thread, so I suggest we stop here (I will). I just find it hilarious that people here would claim that the vast majority of scientists are NPCs, and that there's no way that they're wrong.

The comparison of Climate Change to Mathematics, Evolution and Physics is not even close.

Isaac Newton laws can predict the astral bodies movement with impressive precision. I never understood Quantum Physics, but every computer built to this date uses its concepts, so I give it a credibility rep.

Al Gore says my city was supposed to be underwater five years ago? Bullshit

Post: #415

(10-23-2018 03:12 PM)isracolo Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:02 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I see Al Gore is still alive and well!

Damn! You got me. Better get back to inventing the newest version of the internet.
Gonna get back to lurking. Bye

If unable to rebuke claims, self deprecate, run: "exit.exe"

Post: #416

You ever notice how the trolls absolutely HAVE to reply to every single post, questioning or teasing them?

Post: #417

(10-23-2018 03:13 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  According to hacks like Al Gore and other capable but dishonest scientists; places like my hometown, New York, Netherlands and even the fucking Arctic were supposed to be drowned years ago, yet nothing even remotely close to that happened.

How can you explain that kind of shit away?
You think CNN and NYT polls are hard facts too? because statistics and polling isn't some soft science bullshit and the MSM definitely had capable personnel at their disposal over the 2016 elections

I don't care how high IQ and knowledgeable someone is, if what they say doesn't match reality they are full of shit, period.

I don't care what Al Gore says. I don't care how precise or imprecise he was. I don't base my opinions on Al Gore, nor on CNN or NYT polls. I base it on empirical fact, smaller-scale models and scientific consensus.

Fixating on one character as if it represents the entire field makes zero sense.

(10-23-2018 03:13 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  About the NASA scientists, reality is not idealistic.
They could get things wrong in so many different ways.
Personally, I think it was dishonesty, political influence and confirmation bias,
but either way these guys lied.

As did the vast majority of scientific associations and organizations world wide. Why, though? Such a vast conspiracy.

(10-23-2018 03:13 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  The comparison of Climate Change to Mathematics, Evolution and Physics is not even close.

Isaac Newton laws can predict the astral bodies movement with impressive precision. I never understood Quantum Physics, but every computer built to this date uses its concepts, so I give it a credibility rep.

Nearly 0 computers today use Quantum Physic concepts. Very few do, and they're extremely expensive. As for Isaac Newton - Einstein's theory of relativity ended up superseding his 200-year-old theory of mechanics. That being said, forget the comparisons, I shouldn't have gone that path - it really doesn't matter.

Post: #418

(10-23-2018 03:21 PM)Ski pro Wrote:  You ever notice how the trolls absolutely HAVE to reply to every single post, questioning or teasing them?

You're right. That is quite stupid of me.
It doesn't matter. No minds will be changed here.

I'll stop my "trolling" now and move on ahead with my NPC ways!

Post: #419

Is there a climate change thread you guys can take this to?

Post: #420

NPC-bub - run back to your college gulag with the other NPCs - there you can discuss at length what morons there are out there.

All your claims - from the warming (cutting off the 1930s-50s warming), the data (manipulated, stations cut-off in the last decades, Climategate anyone a few years ago? You probably were still 12 and playing with your first X-Box then eh?), the consensus (countless climatologists included who did not agree, countless railroad engineers and other shit-to-do-with-weather "scientists" included - science is not a fucking consensus when you have fucking stupid models that have not included the sun-activity in it - even slight variations having massive repercussions.

Go watch some debates with Lord Christopher Monckton you moronic NPC - seriously - all this "science" is on the level of 23 genders.

Post: #421

(10-23-2018 03:04 PM)isracolo Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:55 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:19 PM)isracolo Wrote:  As for science not being able to "prove" that Global Climate Change is caused by man's activities - you could say that same about the theory of evolution, most of modern physics, etc. Mathematics is by definition "unprovable" without making some axiomatic assumptions. Do you also doubt these things?

If unable to challenge argument, run: "changethesubject.exe"

LOL! You cherry-picked one sentence out of a long message challenging the argument
Great debate skills.

Nice try but your 'long message challenging the argument' was not challenging Enoch's argument. Maybe you were challenging someone else's argument or maybe you were just including some extra things to score extra points in the style of a high school student trying to reach the required word count on an essay.

Enoch simply said:
"Can science prove that "global warming" is caused by man's activities?

No it cannot, as it an observational, not testable science.

Sorry bud."

I picked out your (only) response to this, and left out your unrelated introduction for clarity. Let's actually respond to people's points instead of just running "changethesubject.exe".
--

Quote:As for your questions:

1. Has the climate changed in the past significantly due to the natural causes?
Yes, it has.

2. So does the climate change naturally?
Yes, it does.

3. OK, so how much of this current climate is change is natural and how much is down to human activity? 0.1%? 1% 100%? If you don't know, is there a way to measure this accurately using science?
The change is close to 100% due to human activity. Natural change in a century has not gotten close to the levels it has gone through in the past 100 years.
Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

--

OK so you haven't got an accurate measurement, and didn't answer the second question, so I'm guessing there isn't a scientific way to measure that, but you're guesstimating close to 100% of climate change in the last 100-200 years is caused by humans.

Then you post a few sentences of scientific sounding copypasta at me as evidence, leaving it to the PC's to research and verify if they have any validity behind them. You haven't even bothered to put it in your own words or explain why and have to include some extra stuff about areosols having a cooling effect.

OK, thanks, better than nothing I guess.

Quote:

(10-23-2018 02:55 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

Quote:How was it that Syberpunk said, earlier in this thread?

(10-11-2018 12:18 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The biggest NPC trait by a light year is the unwillingness to accept the fact that maybe just maybe you are wrong...in other words to have humility, to think not less of yourself, but to think of yourself less, and ruminate on the world at large.

If accused of being an NPC run: "noyouareanNPC.exe"

Is that not exactly what you're doing with your last message?

I didn't see anyone call me an NPC...

Post: #422

(10-23-2018 03:25 PM)isracolo Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:13 PM)TutorGuina Wrote:  The comparison of Climate Change to Mathematics, Evolution and Physics is not even close.

Isaac Newton laws can predict the astral bodies movement with impressive precision. I never understood Quantum Physics, but every computer built to this date uses its concepts, so I give it a credibility rep.

Nearly 0 computers today use Quantum Physic concepts. Very few do, and they're extremely expensive. As for Isaac Newton - Einstein's theory of relativity ended up superseding his 200-year-old theory of mechanics. That being said, forget the comparisons, I shouldn't have gone that path - it really doesn't matter.

You actually have no idea what you are talking about, Quantum Mehanics is fundamental in the development and production of transistors, semiconductivity itself is a quantum mechanical phenomenom.

Post: #423

The anti-NPC Anthem:

Quote:We are not your kind of people.
You seem kind of phoney.
Everything's a lie.
We are not your kind of people.
Something in your makeup.
Don't see eye to eye.

We are not your kind of people.
Don't want to be like you.
Ever in our lives.
We are not your kind of people.
We fight when you start talking.
There's nothing but white noise

Ahhh.... Ahhh.... Ahhh.... Ahhh....

Running around trying to fit in,
Wanting to be loved.
It doesn't take much.
For someone to shut you down.
When you build a shell,
Build an army in your mind.
You can't sit still.
And you don't like hanging round the crowd.
They don't understand

You dropped by as I was sleeping.
You came to see the whole commotion.
And when I woke I started laughing.
The jokes on me for not believing.

We are not your kind of people.
Speak a different language.
We see through your lies.
We are not your kind of people.
Won't be cast as demons,
Creatures you despise.

We are extraordinary people.
We are extraordinary people.
We are extraordinary people.
We are extraordinary people.

Post: #424

(10-23-2018 03:04 PM)isracolo Wrote:  As for your questions:

1. Has the climate changed in the past significantly due to the natural causes?
Yes, it has.

2. So does the climate change naturally?
Yes, it does.

3. OK, so how much of this current climate is change is natural and how much is down to human activity? 0.1%? 1% 100%? If you don't know, is there a way to measure this accurately using science?
The change is close to 100% due to human activity. Natural change in a century has not gotten close to the levels it has gone through in the past 100 years.
Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

You complain about people cherry picking your comments, then you present cherry picked data like this.

Why do so many members of the Climate Cult conveniently ignore the Medieval Warm Period?

We don't have to speculate what the effect would be with a dramatically warmer climate, because it has already happened during recorded history. They generally talked about how awesome it was and how they could grow grapes in Northern Europe and NONE OF THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIOS THROWN AT US REMOTELY HAPPENED. It was merely "pleasant".

The absurd mental gymnastics the Climate Cult goes through to gloss over this is amazing. They've been reduced to essentially saying "It happened, but it didn't happen" and speculating that every measure they couldn't measure was freakishly cold to make it fit in their models.

Post: #425

Tool's song Aenema.
Not NPC friendly.

Some say the end is near
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your Prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car

It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away
Any fucking time, any fucking day
Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay

Some say a comet will fall from the sky
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves
Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits

And some say the end is near
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this

Stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied

Learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim

Mom's gonna fix it all soon
Mom's comin' 'round to put it back the way it ought to be

Learn to swim

Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes

Learn to swim

Fuck retro anything
Fuck your tattoos
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory

Learn to swim

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas
Fuck these dysfunctional
Insecure actresses

Learn to swim

'Cause I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way
I wanna watch it all go down
Mom please flush it all away
I wanna see it go right in and down
I wanna watch it go right in
Watch you flush it all away

Time to bring it down again
Don't just call me pessimist
Try and read between the lines

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend

I wanna see it come down
Burn it down
Suck it down
Flush it down