Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later[^][v]#1,050,066
68 here
Sheila Laboof (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,050,069
Hot!
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 36 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,050,070
This is why "global warming" was a terrible name for it, because people are fucking stupid and can't grasp the difference between weather and climate.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,050,071
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
They're the same thing. Thanks.
green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 13 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,050,234
@1,050,070 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6) > cold winter
"weather has nothing to do with weather" > hot summer
"it must be climate change!"
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 55 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,050,248
@1,050,070 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Pay your carbon tax, the government can change the weather if you pay them!
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,306
@1,050,234 (green !StaYqkzUPc)
I see that you also are one of the simpletons who cannot grasp a simple concept like weather and climate not being synonymous with one another.
@previous (F)
You're missing the point of a carbon tax entirely. So much so that you have to be willingly misinformed. Very few people are actually this fucking stupid.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,312
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Funny how you come in here and claim weather and climate are different and anyone who cant see that is stupid but I dont see you explaining it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,314
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,323
@1,050,312 (G)
If only there was an easy to use method of obtaining information quickly. Some kind of mechanism to allow someone with an internet connection to search for specific information... even if such a thing did exist, what a massive amount of work it would be to type in a simple phrase describing what you wish to learn about! Think of all the buttons you would have to press! Golly.
Simply put, weather is short term, climate is long term.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,324
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Yeah so your argument is "I'm not here to teach you" then run away.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,325
@previous (G)
I'm saying it's something you could learn on your own in less than a minute if you took the time to do so. Instead you pretend that being ignorant is some kind of virtue worthy of maintaining. If you don't already know something, it ain't worth learning! Learning is for nerds and pussies!
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,326
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Weather and climate are the same thing. Anyone can see that in an instant by simply looking out of a window. thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,334
They think they're going to replace the thousands of manufacturing jobs that have been lost by building electric cars, solar panels and batteries.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,335
Possibly with millions of electric cars on the road the next made up crisis will have to do with how all those huge batteries are piled up and the toxicity from that will be some supposed death sentence for the planet.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,346
pAy YoUr CaRbOn TaX, yOu BiGoT
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,353
@1,050,306 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
I see you're one of the people who resorts to insults when they can't form a proper argument. So I'm not going to waste my time. Bye!
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,359
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
Yes because @1,050,234 (green !StaYqkzUPc) is something an idiot would say. Say something idiotic, and I'm going to call you an idiot. It doesn't matter what kind of argument one would provide anyway, you'll ignore it regardless if it doesn't conform to your warped view of reality. People like you cannot be reasoned with.
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,364
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Wow. Maybe you need to stop being so rude and learn that people have different political opinions to yourself. I'm sorry that you get triggered so easily. And you're wrong, even though I'm sceptical of climate change, I think renewable energy is good thing, we need to tackle pollution and the plastic problem. I just don't think people should stop eating meat because of "farting cows" or some bullshit. So shove that up your arse and have a nice evening. Thanks.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,368
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc) > political opinions
That's the thing, though. It isn't a political opinion. This has nothing to do with politics. You're denying proven science. You're quite literally on the same level of nutty as flat-earthers. > I think renewable energy is good thing, we need to tackle pollution
Why, if climate change is not real, are these things necessary?
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,370
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Because oil is a finite resource.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,372
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
True. That was admittedly a dumb question on my part, there are plenty of reasons to back those things.
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,382
the farmers are protesting for global warming
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,384
Dodongo heard it on the news. That means it's a fact.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,395
@previous (A)
The vast majority of reputable scientific studies on the matter say it's real. The ones saying it isn't are the ones paid for by the people who stand to gain financially from a lack of action. Totally a coincidence, I'm sure. Billionaires would never lie to us.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,538
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,546
@1,050,538 (A) @previous (I)
Do even the tiniest but of research and you will find plenty of sources on the matter. Just Google "climate change studies" and start reading. Use your brain and make informed decisions about what you read.
Stop using facebook and alt-right web forums as your sources for all of your information, it's clearly poisoning your mind.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,547
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,550
@1,050,547 (J)
You're probably right. It can be hard to tell sometimes. I've met people like this in real life and it's infuriating how willfully ignorant they can be. They read something on facebook they agree with, and its instantly fact. Nothing could ever sway them.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,551
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6) > Just Google > Use your brain
Pick one.
> its instantly fact.
*it's
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,552
@previous (I)
I've met people like this in real life, like dodongo and it's infuriating how willfully ignorant they can be. They read something on Google and it's instantly fact. Nothing could ever sway them.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,554
> Just Google
Yes, this is how you gather information in the modern age. For any topic, not just this. You do research, you find multiple sources, you do research into the quality/reliability of those sources. None of which happens when you get all of your information from Facebook memes and /pol/.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,050,563
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6) > None of which happens when you get all of your information from Facebook memes and /pol/.
Why do you assume anybody who disagrees with you must be unintelligent and/or gets their information from unreliable sources? Is there not even a minute possibility that you might be wrong? Have you not considered that this is a lot closer to the way a flat-earther or an anti-vaxxer or a moon landing conspiracy theorist thinks?
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,572
@previous (I)
I could ask you the same thing. Why are you and your sources more qualified than all of the world's leading scientists? Again, this isn't something that we get to have an opinion on. It's fact, it's proven science, just as it's fact and proven science that the earth is round. You're the one behaving like a flat-earther. Though honestly I have more respect for flat-earthers than I do climate change deniers.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,576
@1,050,554 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Don't need research to see that it's cold outside even though the Earth is supposedly burning like a dried out Christmas tree soaked with gasoline and a match put to it.
green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,580
@1,050,546 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
I don't use Facebook or alt-right web forums. I actually make up my own mind about things.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,584
@previous (green !StaYqkzUPc)
May I ask how you came to the conclusion that climate change is a hoax?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,598
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Trump said so. Thanks.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,599
@1,050,572 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6) > I could ask you the same thing. Why are you and your sources more qualified than all of the world's leading scientists?
I don't make any claim that either I or my sources are more qualified than you or yours. Unlike you, I do not claim to know the truth about this for sure - εἰδέναι μὲν μηδὲν πλὴν αὐτὸ τοῦτο εἰδέναι. Also, are you aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?
> It's fact, it's proven science.
You are so sure of this, and yet serious debate still continues... which you no doubt dismiss as pseudoscience, because you, Dodongo, are 100% certain that you are correct and anybody who disagrees with you is therefore a liar, a biggot and a moron.
> just as it's fact and proven science that the earth is round.
Now this I am also sure of, because in stark contrast it has has been proven repeatedly by observation, experiment and most importantly correct predictions. And that's the big difference. The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, has yet to get one single prediction correct.
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,608
@previous (I) > Also, are you aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?
You seem to be under the impression that I read online one day that scientists said some stuff so it must be true. I have looked into the actual studies and the people/motives behind them for both sides. Something that you clearly have not done, at least not in good faith.
> yet serious debate still continues
No, it really doesn't, not within the scientific community. It's only a debate in non-scientific contexts. For example, politicians getting paid shit tons of cash by the fossil fuel industry to prevent legislation aimed at mitigating further climate change (which could potentially harm their profits). How can politicians justify this to their base? Easy, they rely on pseudoscience and propaganda to convince their base (you) that science is wrong! It's all a hoax by the democrats to take away your freedom and make you pay more taxes! And people eat it up. That's why it's still a debate. Not because the science behind it is in question.
> which you no doubt dismiss as pseudoscience, because you, Dodongo, are 100% certain that you are correct and anybody who disagrees with you is therefore a liar, a biggot and a moron
Yes, in much the same way that I dismiss flat-earther or anti-vaxxer or anti-evolution ideas as psuedoscience, because that is what it is.
> And that's the big difference. The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, has yet to get one single prediction correct.
That is simply not true. You've bought into the propaganda without doing the slightest bit of research yourself. Predictions of global temperature increases as far back as the 70s have been very accurate.
green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,610
@1,050,584 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Many reasons.
Because all the predictions that scientists made decades ago have turned out to be wrong. They said the ice caps would've melted in the early millennium but they're still there.
Scientists aren't looking for ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, they say that the solution has to be in everyone changing their lifestyles which would take us back to the stone age.
Even if we did change our lifestyles, it would make a negligible difference because countries such as China and India will keep polluting.
Do is I say not as I do celebrities telling everyone to change their lives while they continue to fly private jets around the world.
And lastly, how hard it's being pushed, and mainly by liberals, is putting me off. Extinction Rebellion are acting like a cult. Farting cows is just ridiculous and we exhale carbon dioxide. Unless every mammal stops breathing there will always be CO2. We need to plant more trees and invest in greener energy to tackle it, not stop eating meta.
Don't forget the earth had thousands of times more CO2 in the atmosphere during its first few billions of years existence, yet life still pulled through. We won't go extinct in 5 years by not eating vegan and not driving a shitty Prius.
In short, the hypocrisy and scare mongering is making me become very sceptical of it. I'm not discounting it all together, I just think the threat is greatly exaggerated.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,612
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,624
@1,050,610 (green !StaYqkzUPc) > Because all the predictions that scientists made decades ago have turned out to be wrong
Not true, their predictions on global temperature increases have been very accurate, even as far back as the Charney Report in 1979.
> They said the ice caps would've melted in the early millennium but they're still there.
Who said this? I'm trying to find an actual widely accepted study that predicted such a timeline but can't, outside of celebrities and other non-scientists making average joe guesses. When I have more time this afternoon I'll look harder though.
What other predictions have they supposedly gotten wrong?
> Scientists aren't looking for ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, they say that the solution has to be in everyone changing their lifestyles which would take us back to the stone age.
What magical wand-waving way are they supposed to reduce CO2 emissions then? How are we supposed to limit CO2 emissions unless we change our heavy CO2 emitting ways? "Stone age" is hyperbolic to the extreme.
> Even if we did change our lifestyles, it would make a negligible difference because countries such as China and India will keep polluting.
Ideally the US and other western countries would lead the way in clean energy, and other countries would eventually follow suit. Whether or not that would actually happen is debatable. Even if they didn't follow suit, your logic is that we shouldn't even try because you're pretty sure not everyone will go along with it? By that logic, why do anything in life without a 100% success rate? Besides, in 2016, the US had more than double the total (total, not per capita) CO2 emissions than India, and only half the CO2 emissions of China, despite having less than one fourth the population. Even if the US alone cut CO2 emissions, it would do far more good than you seem to think. Certainly not a "negligible" difference.
> Do is I say not as I do celebrities telling everyone to change their lives while they continue to fly private jets around the world.
Celebrities (and people in general) are hypocrites, big surprise. That doesn't change the science behind climate change.
> And lastly, how hard it's being pushed, and mainly by liberals, is putting me off
Of course it's being pushed hard, because it's a big fucking deal. People holding conservative ideologies (in general, not all obviously) tend to put personal achievement over the well-being of the greater population, so of course they are more likely to continue stuffing their pockets with fossil fuel cash and pretending that the danger isn't real, since they'll be long dead anyway by the time disaster strikes. Not their problem! That's why you see more liberals talking about it. But liberals aren't on "your team" so anything they support must be wrong.
> Farting cows is just ridiculous and we exhale carbon dioxide. Unless every mammal stops breathing there will always be CO2.
No shit there will always be CO2. The point is there is too much CO2.
> We need to plant more trees and invest in greener energy to tackle it, not stop eating meta.
I agree there are better ways to reduce CO2 emissions than stopping eating meat, not that very many people are actually advocating stopping eating meat altogether (not for climate reasons, that is). Anything we can do to limit CO2 emission is a good thing though, no matter how small.
> Don't forget the earth had thousands of times more CO2 in the atmosphere during its first few billions of years existence, yet life still pulled through
Humans certainly were not around during that time, nor will they be when CO2 levels approach such a level again. Not to mention that over the last several hundred million years, every single mass extinction coincided with rapid CO2 increases, like we are beginning to experience. Probably just a coincidence though, right?
> In short, the hypocrisy and scare mongering is making me become very sceptical of it.
So, for reasons completely unrelated to the underlying science, you are skeptical of the underlying science? Sounds very logical.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,626
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,629
@1,050,624 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
stop being reasonable
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,630
@1,050,608 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6) > their base (you)... It's all a hoax by the democrats to take away your freedom and make you pay more taxes!
I don't live in the US so none of that shit affects me, thank God. Hmm, wonder why I doubt the science then. Could it possibly be because I've read a great deal of it over several years and found it to be somewhat lacking in, you know, actual scientific method? No, couldn't be. It must be because I'm a liar, a bigot and a moron... firmly planted in Hilary's basket of deplorables.
> > You, Dodongo, are 100% certain that you are correct... > Yes...
Good luck with that.
Anonymous I double-posted this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,631
@1,050,628 (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Yup, read it. Also read further studies debunking it, and some others debunking the debunking. In the end, when it becomes a matter of opinion like that, one kind of has to accept that there was no real consensus either way. I'll make a prediction for you: in 30 years time the global temperature will either be 1 degree warmer or 1 degree cooler or it will be the same, but there will be no mass extinction. We'll all still be here (though probably not Syntax) and all those US coastal cities like NYC won't be underwater. If I'm wrong, I'll dox myself and make an apology video to you.
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,633
@previous (I)
but the mass extinction part is already happening
dox yourself fag
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,634
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,639
@1,050,631 (I) > In the end, when it becomes a matter of opinion like that, one kind of has to accept that there was no real consensus either way
Keep saying this and maybe it will eventually come true!
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 double-posted this 6 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,050,640