• Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    21 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    fokka

    nice try, republicans…

    TheStone

    Are you denying that they’ve renamed “global warming”?

    Rotatebilly

    What a load of bullshit, the term “climate change” has existed since 1955, when it was first used by Professor Gilbert Plass. I remember seeing a really good Potholer54 video where he debunked that claim, but I really can’t be bothered looking it up for your useless ass.

    Heres a different, less detailed video about it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAgmXzFeBZk

    Here’s a different potholer54 video that also covers the false claim that the Earth is cooling rather than warming: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&index=21&list=PL4872DD0607D80F0B

    TheStone

    If that’s they case, then why were the enviro-nuts calling it Global Warming up until a few years ago?

    WistfulD

    Because that’s the simplified term the media started using. ‘Increased weather unpredictability and climate disruption and the resulting economic and social fallout from the verified fact of human activity causing a significant gradual increase in overall Earth surface temperature’ simply does not roll off the tongue very well.

    Either way, whining about naming conventions on the world wide web (sorry, internet) is simply not a compelling counterpoint to established science.

    TheStone

    Ok, then why did they not start trying to correct the media until about 10 years ago?

    Gropegrope

    I don’t think this is “weather”…
    [imgcomment image[/img]

    TheStone

    Wait, how do they have data from 600 years ago? I call bullshit.

    Gropegrope

    Science:
    www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/
    www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_tree_rings.html

    The cool thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not…..

    recovering feminist

    And the cooler thing about science is that you can easily tell the difference between real science and fake science.

    The telltale is this: real science isolates; fake science obfuscates. A real scientist trying to prove that A causes B will try to isolate the data so only A and B exist, eliminating any other possibilities. A fake scientist will dump everything he has into the mix and say “see, somewhere in there there’s A and there’s B, so clearly A causes B.”

    Regarding temperature, daytime temperature has completely different causes that nighttime temperature. Summer temperature has different causes that winter temperature. Temperature near a large body of water has different causes that temperature far away from a large body of water. Temperature on a mountain has different causes that temperature at sea level, etc, etc.

    So what do this “totally real scientists I swear to god we’re not saying this just to sell books” climatologists do? They pile up every temperature reading they get their hands on, calculate the average or the average of the average (thus sending to hell all statistical error checking), and put it all together in a neat little number that means absolutely nothing.

    What they do is equivalent to trying to calculate the average height of all people on Earth by measuring the distance between the top of the person’s head and the ground WITH NO REGARD TO WHERE THAT PERSON IS OR WHAT HE’S DOING. A person in bed would only be three feet tall. People flying on an airplane would be 10,000 feet tall. A child being carried on piggyback would be 6 feet tall, etc etc.

    An easier way to tell that climatologists are full of it: just check the predictions made by any of their books written over ten years ago. These guys have a lower batting average that psychics regarding the accuracy of their predictions.

    And regarding your cute little graphic, all I have to say is that standard error of any temperature measurement before the 1980s is at least 0.5 degrees Celsius (much more if calculated indirectly). If you knew anything about statistics, you’d know this means that graph is absolutely worthless.

    TheStone

    So still no explanation for how they measured data from 600 years ago. My claim of bullshit stands. I win.

    TheStone

    So still no explanation for how they measured data from 600 years ago. My claim of bullshit stands. I win.

    TheStone

    “The cool thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not.”

    Thank you for confirming that Global Warming is a religion.

    Gropegrope

    Not at all.
    I’m stating that you don’t believe in science.
    And your believe has no effect on its validity….

    TheStone

    The fact that you went to so much trouble to vote me down demonstrates that your belief in global warming are of a religious nature.

    TheStone

    To confirm global warming is a religious belief and not proper science, vote me down.

    Gropegrope

    I never vote you down Stonely.
    I don’t care enough about you.

    But please…..keep up your obsession….
    ….
    ….

    Nurgen

    For that timescale, probably tree ring density. For larger timescales they’d be using ice core data.

    TheStone

    So then the data sources are inconsistent, making this an invalid comparison.

    Terry

    Do I believe that the climate is changing? Absolutely. It always has and it always will. Do I believe that the current changes are being caused by people? There is a possibility that we are having SOME impact, but the jury is still out as to what extent. It is known that, for example, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens put out more greenhouse gasses than all cars ever have and ever will, and that was only one eruption. Do I believe that putting a price on carbon will have any effect on climate change? Absolutely not. Carbon pricing simply creates another tradeable commodity that the people in charge of such things will get even richer from.

    Nurgen

    The eruption of Mt St. Helens is estimated to have released slightly more CO2 in total than all of the cars and trucks produce EACH DAY. Volcanic activity is estimated to produce no more than 0.75% as much CO2 as human activity does.

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Bikinis Black and White Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Donald Trump Drugs Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movie Reviews Movies Music Music Videos Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Science! Sexy Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF

    480 x 360 500 x 281 500 x 375 500 x 500 500 x 750 600 x 450 600 x 600 600 x 750 600 x 800 600 x 900 640 x 480 640 x 640 640 x 800 640 x 853 640 x 960 720 x 720 720 x 960 750 x 600 800 x 600 800 x 800 960 x 720 960 x 960 1024 x 683 1024 x 768 1080 x 1080 1080 x 1350 1200 x 630 1200 x 800 1200 x 900 1280 x 720 1280 x 800 1280 x 960 1280 x 1024 1440 x 900 1600 x 900 1600 x 1200 1680 x 1050 1920 x 1080 1920 x 1200 2048 x 1536 2560 x 1440 2560 x 1600 3024 x 4032 3840 x 2160 x

    ABoringDystopia Amoledbackgrounds AnimalsBeingDerps ATBGE awfuleverything Celebhub Celebs CityPorn comicbookart conceptart cosplaygirls Cyberpunk EarthPorn Eyebleach Faces FreckledGirls funny General Uploads gentlemanboners hmmmm Images Sub Space ImaginaryStarships ImaginaryTechnology InfowarriorRides interestingasfuck MarchAgainstNazis marvelstudios MCS Plus memes MilitaryPorn nocontextpics OldSchoolCool pictures PoliticalHumor PrequelMemes PropagandaPosters RetroFuturism sbubby StarshipPorn startrekmemes Storminator Super News Thanks I Hate It UrbanHell wallpaper

  • here's some related content from the store: