Except global cooling. That sh;t’s terrifying!
Total land area Canada and Russia: 26 million km², Africa (alone): 30 million km². Combine that with other equatorial areas and losing land to rising sea levels, and you've lost a hell of a lot of living areas and killed a lot of people.
Also, you are suggesting that everyone should move to Canada and Russia. Who does that give power to?
@goaded of course not. I’m suggesting we buy food from them. And would you not rather buy fuel from Canada than the Middle East.
What do you think you would have to trade with them?
@goaded well money would be a basic example. Specific goods would depend on what they wanted obviously. That’s how capitalism works. This is a stupid conversation since it’s beside the point. Global warming is inevitable. It’s outside of human influence.
It's not beside the point, because you're justifying doing nothing and allowing huge amounts of the world's productive land to turn to dust because you incorrectly believe"Global warming is inevitable. It’s outside of human influence.". Even if that were true, you're ignoring the massive amount of human tragedy that would ensue from billions of people being forced to move away from the equator.
Goaded, you could also add desertification to land loss.Kaitie, why would you want to buy stuff from other nations? All you are doing is creating a dependents on another country. Have we not already learned our lesson on why that is bad? (OPEC got us ones with it). You want to buy stuff from other nations? How are you supposed to do that if you can't make anything to sell without natural resources? All you would do is put your country in debt.
Katie, you don't think humans are causing the current warming? What is then? It isn't the sun since the stratosphere is cooling, which would be warming if the solar intensity increased. This means the warming must be comming from within the troposphere, were we live. The ownly thing known to cause warming in the troposphere is GHGs, which humans are producing at an exponential rate. Not ownly that but the temperature is increasing at a much faster rate which doesn't give species time to adapt. What do you think is causing the warming if not humans? And why do you think the effects humans can cause are so minuscule?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
How has it been debunked?
science, plenty of scathing stuff coming out against the human C02 model. Things like Ice core Samples, Satelite data, Sun and Cosmic ray research, Math corrections in their modeling, better data on clouds.. that kind of stuff. All kinds of political meddling in the science has also been exposed.. it's all pretty damning.
Please cite the peer-reviewed papers that do the debunking.Wait, who am I kidding? We all know that there are none.
Core samples have been used to help climate models and back date temp and gas concentration, so I dont get how that would be going against the co2 model. The ownly satellite one I can think of was retracted due to problems with the satellite. And I solar radiation isn't a factor because the stratosphere is cooling. If it was a factor we would be seeing a warming of the stratosphere. Where are you getting this from?
but muh google censorship doesn't matter.. right? /le sigh.. it's so tiring dealing with people who constantly can't be bothered to inform them selves.. The only science more sketchy and political than climate science is gender studies. Something like 90%+ of all research in those fields is fraudulent science, this has been proven, was really big news a few years ago. Even the MSM talked about it and they memory hole everything that's contrary to their narrative even worse than google.THINK ABOUT IT Millions of people are adamant that the co2 model is wrong.. You you don't even know the arguments that support that position? WTF is wrong with YOU? this is one of the biggest issues the world might face and you don't even know the arguments, evidence and other factors involved?But of course if I don't spend a couple hours digging shit up I'm the one who is wrong.. lol no it means you are a shitty irresponsible citizen. I don't care if you reject what I say, do your own damn home work you lazy fucking sacks.
Well my BA in environmental science would disagree with you. I've done my research I know most arguments against anthropogenic climate change, and I can disprove most with actual facts and can even sight sources (a concept you may not be aware of😂). Millions of people admit the co2 model is wrong? You do realize that a few million people is less than 1% of the population, right? You do realize that 99% of academic papers that take a stance on climate change agree it is human influenced? You said "the co2 model," so which one are you talking about? When scientists make climate models they make multiple based on various degrees of co2 and other factors. Most people that say the models are wrong ownly look at the extreme cases that dont match with the circumstances. The fact that you referred to one model and that you called us out on not doing research leads me to believe you are projecting and thus didn't do your research😂. Why not try again with actual facts? Or are you just scared to state your facts because you know I'll be able to prove them wrong? Grow up and do some research
ahh appeal to authority... When I say the co2 model is busted do you even know what I mean when I say that? What do you hear when i say that? Prove to me you know wtf I'm talking about.
Sorry, I assumed you ment climate model, not the co2 model. So many people argue about the climate models and your argument seemed to match that better. You referenced ice cores, satellites, sun and cosmic rays which are all part of the climate model.So I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. The co2 model is just a graph of co2 levels over time, which is also confusing because most refer to it as a graph.Are you referring to the logarithmic warming of co2? Because that ownly shows that we have a chance to stop or at least slow global warming because we are currently producing co2 at an exponential rate.God you're annoying. You refuse to give any evidence to your point, you're being very vague, so it is impossible to know your arguments, evidence and facts when you don't give any. All you are doing is evading taking any kind of solid factual stance because you know I can shoot it down. Either show some actual facts or this discussion is over because of your refusal to make a point and support it with facts. God if this was a structured debate they would probably end it early because of a lack of ant any signs of intelligence.
yep I'm as annoying as you are. Let me explain a little. I'll use politics as an example for this because the parallels are similar. When a Leftist, like a Feminist or SJW for example, uses the word Racism it has a VERY different meaning than if someone on the conservative side of the isle uses the same word. Now imagine Google is censoring the conservative view point and many of the facts that support their position. Now try to fucking explain to a Feminist why Feminism is debunked? It's almost impossible because you are both speaking very nearly different languages, that's how different the view points are. Add in the MSM and Google censoring information that does not support their ideology... Now under these circumstances try to explain to a Feminist why they are wrong about something, something they paid tens of thousands of dollars to learn in and indoctrination camp called post secondary education. It's much the same thing with climate science.. But whatever, I'm just soooo exhausted arguing these issues with people who won't even get off their ass and do their own homework. Won't be skeptical of their own beliefs etc... Why should I spend literal hours fishing out info for you? But whatever, I'll toss you a bone. Plasma Cosmology Theory is as good a place to start as any I suppose, though it's only the tip of a very large ice berg. This video does a pretty good job presenting the theory, all support by science and shown to you as you watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pWZGBpWP0
In addition to doing my own research I have a Ba in environmental science, so I've done my homework. Feminism is a little different. Climate change is scientific, feminism is political with an agenda. I don't think you can debunk feminism, as many still need to fight for abortion rights; however, you can debunk the wage gap. I haven't gone through the whole video yet, but I don't get how that relates to climate change, as from what I've read it influences weather not the climate and is inconsistent, while the surface temp of the earth continues to increase. And according to climate scientists cloud cover has both a heating and cooling effect depending on the altitude of the clouds. So plasma cosmology theory could also be showing that the temp increase of the earth is being offset, and can get worse.
Because it's all "the same thing" it's all physics.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdtSWROC5PY
Still waiting on your excuse for why they are no peer-reviewed studies showing that the Earth is flat. Oh, whoops, got my conspiracy theorists confused for a second.
@JenSCDC uh what? it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a legit scientific theory with an enourmouse amount of support and evidence behind it. Some of the info was even recently declassified because it was apart of the nuclear program. ffs why be such a stupid ass cunt? let me guess you took gender studies?
Weather and climate aren't the same thing. I'm assuming that isn't what you ment, and your 2nd video doesn't seem relevant. Your theory doesn't explain climate, so it doesn't go against climate change.
Well at least you admit you don't understand the science or the arguments, that's a promising start, but don't ask me those questions.. ask them yourself and go find the answer, do your own homework! 1. If I give it to you, you will just reject it.2. I don't want to spend my day hand feeding you the research.
? I never said that, and what I don't understand is the relevance. You haven't explained how it connects to climate, because they haven't done so in the scientific community. It is still not well studied to draw any conclusions from. GHGS cause warming and are increasing over time. We know the sun solar radiation isn't increasing the temp because we would be seeing a warming of the stratosphere. Thus we know that humans are playing a large part in global warming. Cosmic rays ownly seem to influence weather and not enough is known about it to even say that conclusively. You keep trying to deflect and assassinate my character, instead of arguing the points. All you are doing is making it look like you don't know what you're talking about and any time you don't know the answer you through the question back at me and call me stupid or lazy for not knowing. You seriously need to grow up and learn how to debate.
The current situation.Physics: Makes predictions based on massive amounts of experimentation. Predictions are proven true about everything from the formation of stars and planets to micro computing. Including the prediction of weather, climate long and short term, earthquakes, natural disasters etc.. Constantly searching for faults in it's model and fixing them.Climate "scientists" critique: But muh consensus.. Weather and climate aren't the same thing therefore you are wrong.. Climate "science" model: All predictions are wrong, repeatedly. Can't get thermodynamic math right until a mathematician has enough and forces it down their throat. Doubles down instead of adjusting theories or models to fit observation. Censors any contradictory information. Makes bold claims about how they are the standard of rationality.Physics critique: censored.
😂 your point? Physics and climate scientists work under the same scientific guidelines. Climate models are not all wrong. As I've said they make many based on various factors and people like you choose the most extreme one to which the circumstance for it were not even close. They continuously agust models as new information comes it. Climate scientists don't double down, because the facts still point to climate change. You obviously lack the basic understanding of science. Why not take a crack at the facts I already gave you? Can you not argue against them?
"Physics and climate scientists work under the same scientific guidelines."That is my point, our understanding of physics has changed so much that the climate scientists have been left in the past. so to speak."Climate models are not all wrong."agreed, they are not 100% wrong but they are wrong enough that it's serious and they risk becoming quacks instead of scientists if they can't get the politics out of their field."You obviously lack the basic understanding of science."No I don't. You clearly lack reading comprehension. Have I not made it clear that I'm not interested in digging up research and spoon feeding you? Did I not say I would point out the "tip of the iceberg"? Yet you refuse to do so and you are stuck on the one thing I did point out. What does this tell me? That: You have closed mind and are not interested in information that contradicts your beliefs.
Close minded you ignored my facts and keep screaming conspiracy. If anyone here is closed minded it is you.How has climate scientists been left in the dust? Dark matter, the big bang and string theory are not proven and they could all be seen as quacks. The models are hard to get 100% right because there are so many factors that go into climate. However, GHGS have been proven to cause warming and the earth is warming at a faster than usual pase. Thus, although the models are slightly off they are still right in the cause and effect. They can't get politics out because people like you keep calling it fake news and they need it politicized since action needs to be taken to stop it. I've explained to you why your theory doesn't apply, so it isn't even on the iceberg. Because of that you haven't given me one credible peace of evidence. I've given you several. You keep saying you're not interested in giving me some facts, yet all you are doing is showing me that you can't find anything that I can't disprove. I get the feeling you're projecting
"It's a legit scientific theory with an enourmouse amount of support and evidence behind it." And yet you can't cite any peer-reviewed studies.""it's not a conspiracy theory. " If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...
@JenSCDC You need to work on simple reading comprehension. follow very slowly and re read as necsissary until you understand k? I do not want to debate. I will not debate. Because I don't want to. Not wanting to debate does not = I am wrong. Learn to logic. Stupid is a choice.
But you were debating. You pretty much just screamed conspiracy while using an argument ad hominem when ever we made a point. It wasn't a great argument, but you did make one, so like it or not you were technically debating, just not very well.
I do not want to debate. I will not debate. Because I don't want to. Not wanting to debate does not = I am wrong."Where have I said anything about debating? All I've done is ask for actual evidence.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!