Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[
No... 95% do not reach the same conclusions... that's a lie. Even IF it were true, that's not science.... it's not how science works. Popular consensus is not scientific proof of anything.
I can go stand at the airport with a cardboard sign proclaiming you have a 95% chance of dying if you board an airplane... how many people would heed my warning? I seriously doubt it would be very many.
The 97% consensus on global warming
And that has been debunked.
The 97 Percent Solution
However.... EVEN IF this is true (which it's not)... that is still NOT SCIENCE! It's a popular consensus.... not Science. Just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't make it true... that's the case with God and the case with man-made global warming. Faith in your beliefs is NOT SCIENCE. Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
And that has been debunked.
The 97 Percent Solution
However.... EVEN IF this is true (which it's not)... that is still NOT SCIENCE! It's a popular consensus.... not Science. Just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't make it true... that's the case with God and the case with man-made global warming. Faith in your beliefs is NOT SCIENCE. Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
I'll take my source over yours any day of the week.
They use modelling. Scientists have always used modelling. You know those experiments they do, where they measure particles in the air, and how hot air gets trapped by pollution etc. You know that stuff? Yeah, it's called science.
I'll take my source over yours any day of the week.
I understand science but consensus of popularity is NOT science. When we actually start discussing science, let me know... until then, you are simply squawking an argument ad populum.
Modeling doesn't show a cause, it only shows effects. It's natural for the planet to go through warming and cooling periods. Just because the median global surface temperature is a degree higher over the last 100 years, doesn't prove man caused it.
And what is this bullshit about "pollution?" Carbon dioxide is NOT fucking pollution! It is probably the most abundant compound in the known universe. Without it, LIFE is not possible.
And that's the problem here because all your sources are biased and one-sided. You've bought into the propaganda and no one is ever going to change your mind. You are either closed-minded, a koolaid drinking moron or you have a larger agenda of anti-capitalism and more government control. Objective people without an agenda look at ALL the sources and then make an informed opinion.
From what?The OP is about biology. More specifically, the DENIAL of biology.I'm calling bullshitCare to explain why you feel the need to bring religion into a discussion about science?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Science and religion are convergent, in fact, science was always a part of religion, except the pretentious 200 years lately.
If you seriously need God and religion to know (biologically) when and how a child's life begins? You are incapable of comprehending the facts in a reasonable objective way.
You are a waste of my time.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The religious texts are a scientific observation in this case. Are you trying to turn this into an abortion debate? That would be off topic, wouldn't it? Also, there is a modern scientific research trend that is parallel to religious texts, to interpret life in this world as a continuously existing quantity together with all mass and energy in the universe. Isn't this what biology supporters mean as opposed to the traditional biology deniers?
One of the ways that biology gets denied is by those who cherry pick religious and philosophical theories and use those opinions and perspectives as if those texts have any actual adherence to scientific fact.
If your reaction to a secular scientific reference like a life cycle is to introduce a religious perspective and nothing secular to back your claims up?
You are a denier of Biology.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
There is no cherry picking in my posts. You don't get off this easy.
When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.
No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Speaking of climate change.......
Congress: Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans
I understand science but consensus of popularity is NOT science. When we actually start discussing science, let me know... until then, you are simply squawking an argument ad populum.
Modeling doesn't show a cause, it only shows effects. It's natural for the planet to go through warming and cooling periods. Just because the median global surface temperature is a degree higher over the last 100 years, doesn't prove man caused it.
And what is this bullshit about "pollution?" Carbon dioxide is NOT fucking pollution! It is probably the most abundant compound in the known universe. Without it, LIFE is not possible.
I'd take this guy's word over yours any day of the week.. Benjamin D. Santer - Wikipedia
So tell me smart guy, what is causing the planet to warm?
Carbon is NOT carbon dioxide. If you don't even know something that simple, you've got no idea what you are talking about.
Taking people's word for things is also not Science. If all we ever did was rely on our faith in people's words, we wouldn't have discovered anything with Science. The very admission you are willing to take someone's word for something means you're not practicing science, you're practicing a faith.
The Sun causes our planet to warm. That's pretty fucking basic. What causes the Earth to retain heat? The greenhouse effect. If not for the greenhouse effect, there would be no life on Earth. Part of what makes the greenhouse effect work is the presence of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comes from all kinds of sources, it happens when oxygen binds with carbon. On Earth, this is done through several natural processes and there are natural processes which use some of the carbon dioxide.... like plants. Humans burn fossil fuels which are carbon based. As a result, carbon dioxide is created. So yes... humans do contribute to the carbon dioxide which amplifies the greenhouse effect to some degree, which could cause more warming. However, there is absolutely NO science which shows that human contributions are a primary source for any warming of significance.
In addition, there is no governmental solution to this. Taxing a corporation for their producing carbon is not going to change the dynamics of what is happening in the atmosphere. All it does is punish capitalists for a problem that can't be solved because there really isn't a problem. If you are 100% correct in all of this... the only chance we have is to abandon all industrialization and return to living like pioneer days or cave men. And even then, we have to hope that lessening our impact is enough to change what's already happening. We can't do a thing about nature producing carbon dioxide through thermal vents and volcanoes. Maybe if there were some solution that didn't involve us all returning to primitive lifestyles it would be different.
Now here's the GOOD news... Mother Earth is going to survive no matter what. You see, we have a very resilient planet that can adapt, adjust and self-correct. It has done this for billions of years and far worse peril to it's climate. If human activity is causing some looming catastrophe, Mother Nature will wipe us out and recover over time.
Of course there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming.Taking people's word for things is also not Science. If all we ever did was rely on our faith in people's words, we wouldn't have discovered anything with Science. The very admission you are willing to take someone's word for something means you're not practicing science, you're practicing a faith.
The Sun causes our planet to warm. That's pretty fucking basic. What causes the Earth to retain heat? The greenhouse effect. If not for the greenhouse effect, there would be no life on Earth. Part of what makes the greenhouse effect work is the presence of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comes from all kinds of sources, it happens when oxygen binds with carbon. On Earth, this is done through several natural processes and there are natural processes which use some of the carbon dioxide.... like plants. Humans burn fossil fuels which are carbon based. As a result, carbon dioxide is created. So yes... humans do contribute to the carbon dioxide which amplifies the greenhouse effect to some degree, which could cause more warming. However, there is absolutely NO science which shows that human contributions are a primary source for any warming of significance.
In addition, there is no governmental solution to this. Taxing a corporation for their producing carbon is not going to change the dynamics of what is happening in the atmosphere. All it does is punish capitalists for a problem that can't be solved because there really isn't a problem. If you are 100% correct in all of this... the only chance we have is to abandon all industrialization and return to living like pioneer days or cave men. And even then, we have to hope that lessening our impact is enough to change what's already happening. We can't do a thing about nature producing carbon dioxide through thermal vents and volcanoes. Maybe if there were some solution that didn't involve us all returning to primitive lifestyles it would be different.
Now here's the GOOD news... Mother Earth is going to survive no matter what. You see, we have a very resilient planet that can adapt, adjust and self-correct. It has done this for billions of years and far worse peril to it's climate. If human activity is causing some looming catastrophe, Mother Nature will wipe us out and recover over time.
Of course there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming. Just because you don't like the parameters, or believe their methods are not 'science' doesn't make it so. One of the biggest critics of it in Merchants of Doubt is Seitz. The same guy who was paid by the tobacco lobby to have 'findings' that tobacco didn't cause hardened arteries or lung cancer.
Of course the sun warms the planet. However as Santer has PROVEN with his fingerprinting, the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling. If they were BOTH heating up, that would the sun. With only the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth) heating up, there is one cause. Greenhouse gases, which are natural too (i.e. volcanoes etc), but mainly due to humans.
You know, what I find funny. I lived in NZ for almost 40 years. A massive hole in the ozone layer appeared over the Antarctic every summer. It can bigger and bigger every year until it extended to parts of NZ. Scientists said "Hey guys this is being caused by CFCs from refrigeration units and the like." Of course, refrigeration manufacturers hit the roof, going "BS" and all the rest like you GW deniers are now. However, govts around the world made the manufacturers change the gas in fridges. They stop putting CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer starts reducing. Gee, what a coincidence - not.
You don't have to abandon industrialisation at all. What you have to have are more environmentally responsible corporations. The world shouldn't need Greenpeace or Erin Brockovich, but corporations can't be trusted period. If Brockovich hadn't done what she did, the water in California wells would still be shit. You also have renewables as an alternative source. This is the one thing I really hate about capitalism. It's all about money, money, money. Make me, my shareholders, my friends rich. That's all that matters. You can be rich and environmentally responsible, too. Too much weight is given to shareholders and the like. So your company makes $100 million instead of $120 million because it had to outlay better filters on its chimney stacks bellowing out shit into the atmosphere. Cry me a river.
if you think you can put 10s of millions of tonnes of shit in the air over a 300 year period and it has no affect on the planet and its ecosystem you're a fool.
[
Of course there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming.
I've already pointed out that humans do produce carbon dioxide which does contribute to amplification of the greenhouse effect, which does contribute to warming. My argument is on the degree to which man's activities are actually resulting in significant increase in warming. I believe it's inconsequential.
Of course the sun warms the planet. However as Santer has PROVEN with his fingerprinting, the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling. If they were BOTH heating up, that would the sun.
Nope. The Sun is the source of ALL heat in our solar system. Because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth retains heat from the Sun. Santer simply proved that carbon dioxide acts as an amplifier of the warming effect. We're still uncertain as to what the actual thresholds are with regard to the maximum amount CO2 can have an amplifying effect. We do understand the Laws of Thermodynamics predicts equilibrium and at some point, additional CO2 will cause no further warming.
With only the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth) heating up, there is one cause. Greenhouse gases, which are natural too (i.e. volcanoes etc), but mainly due to humans.
Nope. Because the greenhouse effect was working well before any humans roamed the planet. The PRIMARY greenhouse gas is water vapor. Also, a single major volcanic eruption dumps more CO2 (along with sulfur, sulfur dioxides and other toxic gases) into the atmosphere than man could accomplish in 10,000 years of industrialization. We have at least one of these natural events every few years.
They stop putting CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer starts reducing. Gee, what a coincidence - not.
It was indeed a coincidence because scientists later discovered the infamous "ozone hole" was completely natural and it always expands and contracts. It has nothing to do with man's activities.
You don't have to abandon industrialisation at all. What you have to have are more environmentally responsible corporations.
Uhm... yes... if what you are claiming is 100% true, we MUST abandon ALL industrialization immediately and hope that's enough to reduce the damaging impact. The principles and dynamics of physics are not impressed with our feeble efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. In order to reverse what you claim is happening, draconian measures are in order. We have to stop driving cars. We have to stop making iPhones! Now... even then, we're still going to be churning out plenty of carbon dioxide because we'll have to breathe... and because we'll have to burn something to stay warm in the winter. But aside from the human race committing mass suicide, that's the best we can do.
You also have renewables as an alternative source.
Right now, the best alternative we have is solar and it only provides about 4% of our energy needs. And if we are going to kill off industrialization and capitalism, you can forget about developing anything better. The best hope for such a thing in the future relies on free market capitalism.
if you think you can put 10s of millions of tonnes of shit in the air over a 300 year period and it has no affect on the planet and its ecosystem you're a fool.
Well here's the thing... Carbon Dioxide is not "shit" ...it's a naturally-occurring compound that is most abundant in our universe. It happens as a result of covalent bonding of oxygen and carbon, two of the most fundamental elements in the universe. Nature produces far more of this than humans ever could. Nature also processes a lot of this in plant respiration. You want to reduce carbon dioxide? Plant a fucking tree!
I am all in favor of clean air and water. I am a conservationist who believes in strong protection of our environment from toxins of all kinds... Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. So hop down off your moral high horse and stop it with the virtue signaling. Science is not participating in your little exhibition.
You can believe all you want. Facts say otherwise.
Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm in 2015
Also, the ozone layer no longer being depleted is not a coincidence. Prove otherwise.
Also, the ozone layer no longer being depleted is not a coincidence. Prove otherwise.
We have proven otherwise. Indisputably proven otherwise. You choose to ignore the facts. You choose to ignore that progressives were caught in multiple rounds of "Climategate" where e-mails showed them discussing how they falsify their data. You choose to ignore that after progressives claimed the entire polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014, it actually expanded an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by that point. You choose to ignore that we've experienced colder than normal temperatures - humiliating the progressive "Global Warming" crowd and causing them to "rebrand" it to "Climate Change" in a panic.[You can believe all you want. Facts say otherwise.
Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750) have produced a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm in 2015
Also, the ozone layer no longer being depleted is not a coincidence. Prove otherwise.
[
You choose to ignore the facts. Doesn't matter. The rest of the world knows the truth.
