I hope what criticism I write is not ill-informed. I try to check what I'm saying.
As do I. But plenty don't.
I generally try to stick to facts, polls and statistics when it comes to my opinions. Or how a person on here behaves, but that is totally independent of nationality.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I'm British and German. Mostly British, but I live in Germany.
I could say the Empire State Building is in New York, and you'd probably still say I was wrong, if it suited you.
Like how you talk about climate change LMAO.
No, because I'm consistent and you are not. Your the one who constantly ignores evidence I do not. As I stated, despite the fact that your clearly bat shit crazy and a complete zealot who dismisses all of reality because it suits you, I have stuck to my values, I have stated you have every right to your opinion, your opinions are almost always idiotically stupid and provably false, but you are entitled to them and making the claim that your not American therefore you cannot talk about it is a logical fallacy, a dismissal of the argument. I understand why people would say that to you because again, you ignore reality, but it is still a logically flawed argument (not even an argument really). See, consistency. @Ad_Quid_Orator yeah, how I point out NASA data shows Antarctica is growing, how over 300 atmospheric scientists proved that NOAA was lying about its findings and had altered data to fit their narrative (which earned them millions of dollars), how the satellite data showed that their has been 15 years of no warming despite increased levels of CO2, how CO2 levels based upon scientific data doesn't correlate with temperature, how solar activity and axial tilt and wobble actually correspond near perfectly with the climate fluctuations, etc. etc. etc? Yeah, as I said you can have an opinion, doesn't mean your not wrong (as you almost always are (actually you and goaded would get along great, both of you are delusional ideologs who wouldn't know the truth if it punched you in the mouth).
And how I showed you that-The Antarctic ice shelf was growing because meltwater from the continent dropped the salinity and rose the freezing temperature.-How satellite data only showed that due to orbital decay (it measured the temperature later in the day when it was cooler later in that 15 year period) and when the data was corrected for that the pause went away.-How if solar activity was driving the current warming trend the upper layers of the atmosphere would be getting warmer faster which is not what's happening. See, your arguments are just full of shit.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Yeah we have been through this, you make a claim (the water is melting and that's why its freezing) and I disprove it (15 year "pause", normal cyclic nature for temperatures, late antiquity warming period etc.).
"the water is melting and that's why its freezing"Do you understand why, or are you just trying to make something you don't understand sound stupid?At surface pressure, water that cannot contain any more salt than it has dissolved freezes at -21.1 degrees Celsius, water without any salt in it (like the ice in Antarctica) freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. As the amount of salt decreases, the freezing temperature increases, so more ice is formed at a given sub-zero temperature. Fresh water melting off the old glaciers locally reduces the amount of salt in the sea water, which means the area of ice can increase while the volume of ice decreases. (There's also effects of pressure on the melting point, so ice at the bottom of a glacier will melt at lower temperatures than ice under no pressure.)This is the difference between you and a scientist: you see one anomalous measurement, and assume it's right and all the other measurements that disagree with it must be wrong, a scientist wonders why it happened, and increases the body of knowledge, either by working out why the anomaly happened, or (rarely) updating the overall theory.It's like having a huge jigsaw that's 10% complete and clearly shows fragments of a mountain landscape with clouds, and trees, and houses; finding a piece that's all red doesn't mean the picture's going to change to be of a tomato.
Hellion apparently failed middle school chemistry.
Yeah I do, I'm just pointing out that the claims that we are all going to die because of global warming even though we have had warming substantially greater in the past (well over 50 degrees warmer) and that its CO2s fault even though we only contribute about 3% out of the total.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2(statistically negligible) even though we have had 10x more CO2 in the past and CO2 is arguably the most important compound in our biosphere making up over 90% of any given plants mass and thus 90% of our food and ourselves for that matter along with being a source of oxygen (thanks to photosynthesis) and the entire planet is warming even though other parts of the planet, like the southern hemisphere is not, and also despite the fact that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing and also about 33% of our glaciers are growing, 33% are melting and 33% are staying about the same, and methane is negligible and a third of it is produced by termites a significantly greater amount then any human caused production (again, like with CO2 its negligible) on top of the fact that the oceans were suppose to rise and wipe out entire countries as alarmists have said. . .100 years ago (and again, 50 years ago, and again fourty etc. etc.(in fact according to a report in 1989 we where suppose to have this happen by the year 2000 and yet here we are with not one of the claims made turning out to be true).
Also the fact that satellite data does not match the climate models i. e. real world information is directly conflicting with the claims that are made based upon "models' I. e. non real world projections, plus the fact that again, we have had a cyclic nature for our environment for the entirety of its existence, the polar ice caps have only existed for less then 10% of the planets history, we had the late antiquity warming period which was followed by the dark age cooling period followed by the middle age warming period followed by the renaissance cooling period followed by the industrial age warming period (which started before any real industrialization occurred (in fact we saw warming before coal use was particularly common in the few regions (like western Europe) that industrialization occurred (keeping in mind that in the 1700s almost no nation had any significant industrialized industries that relied on coal production and even those that did had very little of it relatively speaking meaning that we should have seen a far more rapid warming if this was the source and yet we haven't).
See unlike you two I actually research things to make sure it makes sense even going so far as to read scientific papers on the subject. But that's just me (sadly).
"I actually research things"Of course you do. And then you make statements like "well over 50 degrees warmer [in the past]". When would that have been? If it's true, it will have been well before there was any kind of a "we" (by which I mean primates, vertebrates, maybe even multi-cellular creatures) to experience it.Turns out, that, no, it's not been more than a couple of degrees warmer in the last 5 million years or so, maximum 15 degrees (27 Fahrenheit - and what scientific papers still use Fahrenheit?) 500 million years ago, about the same time as the first bones appeared in a kind of fish.All these things you're saying have been answered, it's just that you ignore the answers because you don't like them.If you want to point to something based on real scientific literature to back up your claims, I'll have another look, but until then, don't bother.There's a nice write-up of climate change myths (from 2007) here.www.newscientist.com/.../Tell me if it misses anything you're making claims about.
Shotgunning your points:-We contribute 3% of the total CO2 flux but the CO2 released by the biosphere gets re-absorbed while only half of the CO2 we emit gets re-absorbed so we are responsible for the rise in CO2 concentrations.-It's not how much the temperature changes that makes climate change harmful, it's how fast it changes (look at the end Permian Extinction).-Satellite data didn't initially fit the models because the cooling of the stratosphere threw of the temperature readings of the troposphere. When this effect was corrected for the data did fit the models.
Well first and foremost that statement, the one claiming it was before humans, is an utterly meaningless one. Just because something happens while we exist does not mean we are the cause of it (might as well blame us for the ice age as we started to populate the planet around that time (or at least our closes ancestors homo erectus). Further still your saying that this warming is unnatural, by trying to argue that it happened before we existed your essentially arguing what I stated, that the temperature changes are natural (as they occurred before human intereference). Third you would have to be able to argue that the shift in temperature was directly linked to humans which again, we can prove is not the case and thus again, show that its natural. Fourth you would have to show that it was a bad thing and considering that we use to have jungles as far north as modern day London and the fact that 80% of all bio diversity exists at the equator, the hottest region on our planet and we are witnessing the earth actually getting greener, we can safely say (with again, just common sense (the arctic is not a verdant life rich place, the equator which is substantially hotter however is)) that this is also not the case.
Again, research and common sense (not that I suspect any of you to have any because for you the claims matter more then the real world data). Also we know the late antiquity period (based upon several things like archeological data) had reached temperatures at least as high as what occurred fifteen years ago (before the "pause"(the stopping of the global warming despite increased creation of CO2 that satellite data shows)). As for your erroneous claim that its warmed 15 degrees, again, that is incorrect. Its warmed about 1 degree celsisus since the 1700s. Also posting a link to a group actively dedicated to pushing the anthropogenic climate change myth is rather meaningless as again, Antarctica is growing, we know for a fact that temperature fluctuates, that the claims that NOAA made are scientifically false (they fabricated data and it was proven as such (the fact that they were getting millions for their claims probably had something to do with it)): www.forbes.com/.../
As I have stated before, you would think you two would get tired of being wrong literally every time you speak, yet hear we are.
-And just because climate change happened for other reasons in the past doesn't mean that we aren't causing it now. One way to parse out what is causing it is the thermal stratification of the atmosphere. If for example, the warming was caused by the a more energetic sun, the upper layers of the atmosphere would be warming faster than the troposphere. What we see instead is the troposphere getting warmer while the strato and mesospheres are getting cooler which is what one would expect from a greenhouse effect because IR emitted by the surface of the Earth gets absorbed in the troposphere and doesn't reach the strato and mesospheres. -Cenozoic ice ages are caused primarily in changes in the Earths axial tilt which varies on a 41,000 year cycle. Different feedback loops make this cycle "asymmetric" where the world cools for ~36,000 years and warms for ~5,000 years. The last warming resulting from this occurred 16,000-11,000 years ago so it won't cause the planet to start to warm for another 25,000 years.-Abrupt climate change has been linked to mass extinctions (such as the End Permian, End Eocene and End Pleistocene). 2 were caused by warming so yes it is a bad thing.-The apparent 15 year "pause" was an orbital decay artifact, it never occurred.-You love to Gish Gallop don't you?
@Ad_Quid_Orator Sure thing princess.
What do you think I was saying was caused by humans when I was pointing out that your 50 degrees warmer comment is completely unsupported by any evidence?The "pause" is also BS; it's just cherry-picking 1998 as the starting point for a short period because it was an exceptionally hot year, but still not as hot as 9 subsequent years."As for your erroneous claim that its warmed 15 degrees, again, that is incorrect."That's the exact opposite of what I said. Look at the graph. I said that the last time it was 15 degrees C warmer than today was half a billion years ago. It was in response to you saying it had been 50 degrees warmer in the past.You're not responding to anything I say, and claiming I'm wrong.
Yeah, already responded to what you said, you claiming that something is man made doesn't make it so, that should be obvious (but of course this is you we are talking about). So you said its man made, I pointed out temperature has fluctuated for the entire existence of our planet, you said this time its different, I pointed out that claiming that doesn't make it so and then mentioned how this time corresponds with the cyclic nature of EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME, you then said, to paraphrase, 'Na uh", I then pointed out that at best we have one degree Celsius of warming between the 1700s and now, provided my source of it, you tried to argue some more, I pointed out that your still making a claim but not actually proving it (and again, NOAA was lying (proven fact), we cannot replicate their findings (proven fact), satellite data shows the exact opposite of what you and other alaramists are claiming (proven fact) your claiming that the planet is warming yet some how only in certain spots but not others for some inexplicable reason, you alarmists claim that warmer weather (not the warmest we have ever had even) is indication of massive global warming, you then turn around and say abnormally cold weather is also indicaitons of massive global warming, you then say when everything is average that this too is an indication of massive global warming, you claim that the polar ice caps are melting and this is proof of massive global warming, I then point out that this is actually not the case as NASA satellite data shows Antarctica has been gaining 84,000 tons of ice and snow per year for at least the past twenty years i. e. its growing,
you then claim that no this doesn't count your still right, you then claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit, I then point out that we are producing at best 3% of the total carbon dioxide which isn't even a half of a half of a percent (so negligible) you say this doesn't count because you don't like it, you then turn around and claim we are producing methane which is even worse (ignoring that every decaying bit of matter produces methane), I then point out that one termite colony produces three times the methane of a herd of cattle and then state how Arizona alone has more termite colonies then we have cattle and thus methane cannot be the source of the supposed warming you claim is happening (despite again, all real world data showing that what your saying is NOT happening), you say that this doesn't count and clearly if I would just listen to you and the "data", which you have none of, I would understand. Yeah I have answered your claims and shown they are false and completely fabricated (and I haven't even gotten all that in-depth with it), your just to stupid to understand common sense (when your claims have been proven wrong over a hundred years ago, you know your on the losing side of the argument).
You brining up claims that have already been proven wrong means literally nothing, but as I have told you before your stuck on stupid and their is really no helping you (its interesting to note that every single liberal that claims global warming is happening and the oceans are rising etc. etc. also happen to live as if its not (Obama just bought millions of dollars worth of beach front property. Pretty ballsy considering he has claimed sea levels are rising and the area will be wiped out within ten years (California and florida should have been destroyed by now at least three different times within just my life time according to people like yourself, yet their they are). Or how AL Gore consumes the most electricity and has private jets (and despite having a company that gets paid money to plant trees (despite the fact that seeds are dirt cheap as trees produce thousands of them) in order to remove a persons "carbon foot print"(real nice guy, clearly not benefiting from idiots like you at all), every claim he made for an inconvient truth had been wrong, every single one. Strange, its almost as if it was all made up, as if you guys where, I don't know, alaramists.)
tl;dr, but I don't see you address your invalid claim that temperatures were 50 degrees warmer in the past. If you're not willing to admit to ever being wrong, there's no point in having a conversation, is there?Likewise, if you want to point to sources that are at least based on scientific information, I'll discuss them with you, but if you just spout assertions, I'll assume they're as wrong as the 50 degrees one (and the one where you say I'm always wrong about everything - you're doing a wonderful job proving my Empire State Building comment).
So inconclusion, as all data shows you are wrong, not just a little wrong, massively wrong. Like "dear god how could some one be that pathetic and stupid", sort of wrong. But you can't fix stupid and you two have a monopoly on that. I mean the fact that all the people who claim it are not altering their life styles in the slightest and their "solutions" to the problem ignore nuclear energy, the cleanest energy we have (and the safest) and involves such things as "carbon taxes" i. e. stealing money from people to give to the government and ceding control over society over to government in the form of ever growing regulations none of which actually does anything except put money in the governments pocket, gives large sums of money to the "green"(in name, not in practice of course) industry. But again, you guys are about ideology not common sense. I'll take you more seriously when you actually alter your life to fit your world view. In the meantime here are some scientists laughing at your claims: https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsUhttps://youtu.be/ZA2z7VhCjmohttps://youtu.be/jPIv2m2NtiQhttps://youtu.be/jpcUnVi9Nz4https://youtu.be/ZiCmKRrAZokin-this-together.com/.../
You're not discussing what I'm saying, you're ignoring what I say and picking from a menu of climate change denial arguments. You got an order of #1, #46, #77, #101, #78, and #88, in that last rant.https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The first four videos are all about one Scientist, Dr. Tim Ball, a geographer. I'm sure he does all his talks for free.The last one is a Republican Senator complaining that some of the 97% of the people watching a game of chess only agree that a game of chess is going on, not on the next move that's going to be made. The other 3% think it's a game of checkers. He thinks it's unfair to sling mud at the 3%.
That first video is from the Heartland Institute who worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris in the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. It seems they haven't changed.
Maybe not, but a native of Florida, or California, or Texas, or Minnesota? There's just as many differences within the states as there are outside.
Yeah, the USA is a big place but it does share some basic values. Free speech is a biiig one.
I do agree though.
I get the free speech one, but it does have limits.
I can't incite violence and such but I can absolutely be politically incorrect and vulgar.
Just like something else... :)
I've only been German for a few months. :)
An Englishman who has crossed over to the land of the Huns, Lord Haw-Haw has risen from the dead.
Maybe I should start all my comments with "Germany calling", at least I couldn't reasonably be accused of pretending to be American any more!
Well what can I say, America is not very popular worldwide and so we get a little sensitive about foreigners saying stuff about us. We are often inclined to think that Western Europeans look down their noses at us.
So your opinion is that the country I live in is a shithole (although you can't even be bothered to find out what it is), so I'm not allowed to have an opinion about (not a say in) American politics? Consistent. Well done.
You live in britian, a shit hole. You can have all the opinions you want, they just dont matter. Just like my opinion of your country doesn't matter. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.
Are you this clueless in real life? Wrong, again.
Honestly I really dont give a shit what country you live in.
English/recently German, living in Germany. Is my English all that bad? (Meaning no offence to people for whom it's a second language and probably know if I should have used "who" just now, or got it right!)
When have I ever portrayed myself as a victim? I know I'm extremely privileged, being white, well off, and a stay-at-home dad, I get lots of unearned credit.
Stating that you somehow aren't entitled to have an opinion indicates oppression. My comment wasn't intended so much as criticism of yourself but of modern American culture
Ah, I see what you mean; I phrased it badly. I should have said "Some people think I'm not entitled to an opinion on America, no matter how much reality supports it."
That's why I lay out the facts. They're usually ignored.
Your facts rarely are
Please, feel free to give me examples.
It does, although I'm English-German. Not well hidden, is it?
Good job you were borred enough to answer! :)
I needed to in order to unclog my news feed from seeing it.
Wrong question. I thought it was another one
But anyways it is because America is an idea we all made up. We are humans not countries