Topic: The earth's climate is static and has never changed, ever.
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #40,726
Since it's formation until the 20th century the sea levels, geography, climate, atmospheric composition, and mean temperature have never fluctuated.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #542,375
Said nobody, ever.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #542,376
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #542,378
@previous (C)
Exactly. See it only starts going up when the 20th century began. Before that it was set at a fixed level and never fluctuated.
@542,375 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I just said it.
Exactly. See it only starts going up when the 20th century began. Before that it was set at a fixed level and never fluctuated.
@542,375 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I just said it.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #542,379
@previous (A)
Words vs Math/Science
Topic: The earth's climate is static and has never changed, ever.
So are you trying to be Facetious?
Words vs Math/Science
Topic: The earth's climate is static and has never changed, ever.
So are you trying to be Facetious?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,385
@OP
> Since its creation, six thousand years ago, until the 20th century the sea levels, geography, climate, atmospheric composition, and mean temperature have never fluctuated.
ftfy
> Since its creation, six thousand years ago, until the 20th century the sea levels, geography, climate, atmospheric composition, and mean temperature have never fluctuated.
ftfy
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,396
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,403
History only begun at the 19th century
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,406
oh my fucking god
the concern isn't about whether the earth will survive - it will. the concern is that our way of life isn't compatible with a vastly different earth.
the concern isn't about whether the earth will survive - it will. the concern is that our way of life isn't compatible with a vastly different earth.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,410
@previous (Triptych !!/xkPL9myM)
One only needs skills sufficient to be able to move, to a better place on the planet to live.
Its always been survival of the fittest.
One only needs skills sufficient to be able to move, to a better place on the planet to live.
Its always been survival of the fittest.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,413
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,415
@542,410 (C)
most if not all of the planet will change
many current species will be unable to adapt in time and will die off
our way of life will be forever changed
most if not all of the planet will change
many current species will be unable to adapt in time and will die off
our way of life will be forever changed
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #542,423
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #542,590
@542,378 (A)
> Exactly. See it only starts going up when the 20th century began. Before that it was set at a fixed level and never fluctuated.
>
> I just said it.
haha wow!! its almost as if global temperatures have been fucked since the industrial revolution!! WHO KNEW THAT RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?
OH WAIT
FUCKING EVERYONE ON EARTH KNOWS THAT except for dumbshits that claim that global warming isnt real
> Exactly. See it only starts going up when the 20th century began. Before that it was set at a fixed level and never fluctuated.
>
> I just said it.
haha wow!! its almost as if global temperatures have been fucked since the industrial revolution!! WHO KNEW THAT RAPID INDUSTRIALIZATION IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?
OH WAIT
FUCKING EVERYONE ON EARTH KNOWS THAT except for dumbshits that claim that global warming isnt real
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #542,606
@previous (G)
People just dont believe the outlandish claims of fear mongering "scientists" about global warming. Like global sea levels rising for instance, most people have watched a glass filled with ice water melt and seen it not overflow.
People just dont believe the outlandish claims of fear mongering "scientists" about global warming. Like global sea levels rising for instance, most people have watched a glass filled with ice water melt and seen it not overflow.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #542,617
there was once a time, 3.5 billion years ago, where single celled organisms and algae and shit converted the atmosphere from poisonous gasses to high concentrations of Oxygen and Nitrogen (basically pollution created by algae). In the process they destroyed their own natural environment and were wiped out in one of the first great extinction events on the planet. Of course this paved the way for life that metabolizes oxygen and a few billion years later here WE are.
anyway, i just wonder what we're paving the way for by terraforming our plant with pollution like slime mold used to do. i would think that we're smarter than algae and would recognize our own ability to effect the environment globally, but i'm pretty much questioning that now. we've known about this shit for like 60 years and people are still in denial that we're contributing to climate change by polluting everything.
anyway, i just wonder what we're paving the way for by terraforming our plant with pollution like slime mold used to do. i would think that we're smarter than algae and would recognize our own ability to effect the environment globally, but i'm pretty much questioning that now. we've known about this shit for like 60 years and people are still in denial that we're contributing to climate change by polluting everything.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #542,618
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #542,619
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 21 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,793
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,794
@previous (squeegee)
so basically scientists have stopped arguing about the actual debate and are now researching ways to inform imbeciles what the real conclusion of the debate was.
this is what happens when one side of a debate uses misinformation and lies to make their arguments.
so basically scientists have stopped arguing about the actual debate and are now researching ways to inform imbeciles what the real conclusion of the debate was.
this is what happens when one side of a debate uses misinformation and lies to make their arguments.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,796
Christians do not have to worry about any of this.
They look forward to Armageddon. Scientology also expects earth to fall into ruins and their Alien leaders have a plan for moving on to another planet.
They look forward to Armageddon. Scientology also expects earth to fall into ruins and their Alien leaders have a plan for moving on to another planet.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,812
@previous (Syntax)
So, what you're saying is, Christians don't care about the planet because the Bible says it should be destroyed in order to usher in the second coming of Christ. And Scientologists are going to be whisked away to Cygnus X-1 long before any of this matters.
So, what you're saying is, Christians don't care about the planet because the Bible says it should be destroyed in order to usher in the second coming of Christ. And Scientologists are going to be whisked away to Cygnus X-1 long before any of this matters.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,813
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,821
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,828
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,831
My point is: yes, the earth's climate is changing but it has always been changing. The idea that "but for" human industrial activity the climate would just go on forever exactly the same is misguided because the climate has always been changing, since the beginning. See: Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age. Is AGW real? Maybe, but I don't think it's the end of the world.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,836
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,845
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,847
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,848
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Not sure is not sure about their gender, and plans to start transitioning
Not sure is not sure about their gender, and plans to start transitioning
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,853
@542,831 (A)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,932
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #542,935
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
lol probably
The one thing that you can be sure of when it comes to the "not sure" anon... Is that they are not sure.
lol probably
The one thing that you can be sure of when it comes to the "not sure" anon... Is that they are not sure.