Liberal Left DENY Natural Climate Change!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SaturnFX
Lol. I think you missed my point. I'm referring to deniers who will insist that it is a conspiracy and ALL the scientists in the world are in on it just because.

There is just no helping people like that. they would be the type that would run their own experiments if they could and assume the results are being messed with by invisible reptilians when they aren't looking.
...
which barely happens more than 20% of the time.

a reply to: SaturnFX

It really does boggle my mind that the premise, "Near 100% of the scientists in the world (can't say the 97% figure because deniers get testy) are bought out by... uh... government interests(?)" is a more believable premise than, "a handful of scientists are bought out by corporate interests, namely oil and coal companies, poised to lose a LOT of money if the science is true all to say that climate change isn't real by obfuscating the issue. Oh and here are the financial documents AND names of the scientists bought out AND internal documents from the companies acknowledging the conspiracy by self verifying it then saying something else". I mean when you compare conspiracies in a neutral setting, one is a HELL of a lot more convincing then the other.

It's almost embarrassing how easily conspiracy theorists are being duped all because of their distrust of the government. Even when a real and JUICY one is right there for them to latch onto, they still take the bait regardless.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the entire hypothesis of man-made global-warming predictions makes any sense at all using basic math. Please, I'm waiting.

Or, go ahead and keep denying basic math. This is much less complicated than Galileo's theories. This is not rocket-science. All that I'm doing is pointing-out the obvious.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover
Basic math? Hey hotshot. Do me a favor and explain to me Cell theory with "basic math". Make sure you ONLY use the following operators: + - / * and =. Oh and no other characters besides 0-9. So no letters or words. I'll wait.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's almost embarrassing how easily conspiracy theorists are being duped all because of their distrust of the government. Even when a real and JUICY one is right there for them to latch onto, they still take the bait regardless.

I think MMGW has a very big silver lining though, but it requires a few steps

Condition 1) globally admit across all platforms that man made global warming is a real thing, science is right. (and that its a bad thing)
Condition 2) Admit also we are not going to change our lifestyles but in fact will require more energy as more nations enter into a developed status. China, India, etc.

Once conditions 1 and 2 are met, we can then globally work together pouring large sums of research/development into counter technologies. carbon eaters (super "trees"), cheap and highly efficient solar cells, wind farms, tidal energy farms, etc etc etc..clean energy done on a global scale in order to clean up while actually increasing the energy reserves. work on electric and small fusion engines that offer equal transport, and then freely dispurse all these techs to every nation

Humanity does pretty good when backed against the corner. so the quicker we realize we are cornered, the quicker we can innovate our way to a type 1 civilization

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the entire hypothesis of man-made global-warming predictions makes any sense at all using basic math. Please, I'm waiting.



Or, go ahead and keep denying basic math. This is much less complicated than Galileo's theories. This is not rocket-science. All that I'm doing is pointing-out the obvious.

You haven't provided any math but -10 +2= -8
And yet some how you think "nailed it!" ????

You need math that proves the atomic heat retention rates of CO2 has been miscalculated...

Or

Proof that we do not add massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.



You are siting inaccuracies in predictions by single climate models...So all you have "proven" is that that prediction, by that specific model is wrong(and that's assuming your information is correct in the first place).

Which is the equivalency of me saying gravity isn't real because if it were we would fall into the sun.

Your discounting a very easily varifiable conclusion (climate change), because you don't agree with the "end result" predictions. Which most likely was copied by some conservative action group, from the most extreme models, that not many people agreed with in the first place.