Remove this ad

avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1041 [url]

Jun 14 17 7:03 AM

webkilla wrote:
I've encounted climate change deniers who refused to believe in ozone depletion as well
What, seriously? That's stupid. CFCs and the ozone layer are a great example of a real crisis being recognized and addressed. It was so effectively addressed by everyone, businesses included, that environmentalists avoid mentioning that issue as it was solved (though not yet resolved due to waiting out the existing CFCs to break down).

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1042 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:24 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

webkilla wrote:
I've encounted climate change deniers who refused to believe in ozone depletion as well

What, seriously? That's stupid. CFCs and the ozone layer are a great example of a real crisis being recognized and addressed. It was so effectively addressed by everyone, businesses included, that environmentalists avoid mentioning that issue as it was solved (though not yet resolved due to waiting out the existing CFCs to break down).

I mentioned this before but it's especially worth mentioning again in response to that as there's no position too stupid for someone to believe.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/03/the-men-who-believe-the-earth-is-flat/

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1044 [url]

Jun 14 17 1:19 PM

plarblman wrote:
Shan, are you implying that you're a FUCKING ROUNDIE?!?!?

But yeah the Flat Earth Society is both hilarious and sad. 

Oblate spheroid or GTFO.

Quote    Reply   

#1045 [url]

Jun 14 17 11:39 PM

Shan wrote:

plarblman wrote:
Shan, are you implying that you're a FUCKING ROUNDIE?!?!?

But yeah the Flat Earth Society is both hilarious and sad. 

Oblate spheroid or GTFO.

Discworld on a turtle on an infinite stack of elephants FTW


but yes

flat earthers and shit like that - young earth creationists... especially young earth creationist webcartoonists (like the one I'm about to have a go at in the most wanted forum) are just fucked in the head

on the plus side, then they do tend to make great lolcows

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1047 [url]

Jun 15 17 8:19 PM

The third expedition to either pole in 4 years to prove claims of anthropomorphic global warming has had to be canceled due to unseasonably high ice growth. Excessive ice calving resulting from the Arctic's continued ice growth sent too much ice in the sea to permit safe travel. This is still less embarrassing for the global hoax than the 2013 and 2016 expeditions to Antarctica, where the ships just got stuck in the unseasonably thick ice. The 2013 incident was especially awful (and grossly under reported) due to two separate icebreakers also getting stuck in the ice trying to free them before the idea was abandoned in favor of evacuating the ship by helicopter.

The bullshit artist's explanation for the 2017 excess of Arctic ice? Warming, of course... which produces less ice and by extension less sea ice.

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Freezing is Melting.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 15 17 8:21 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#1048 [url]

Jun 15 17 11:08 PM

you say that - but one of the explanations I recall seeing for that is that global warming would increase weather extremes. That is, weather would become much warmer around the equator, while it would become more cold around the poles (at least to begin with)

but for the love of it, then I can't remember where I heard that

Quote    Reply   

#1049 [url]

Jun 15 17 11:31 PM

Wasn't that the premise of The Day After Tomorrow?

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1050 [url]

Jun 16 17 12:26 AM

webkilla wrote:
you say that - but one of the explanations I recall seeing for that is that global warming would increase weather extremes. That is, weather would become much warmer around the equator, while it would become more cold around the poles (at least to begin with)

but for the love of it, then I can't remember where I heard that
I've never heard an explanation for global warming that involved the poles getting colder. Up until a few years ago they claimed the Arctic shrinkage was due to it.

Look, here's the problem with claims like that (and the utter nonsense of The Day After Tomorrow) in layman's terms. The Greenhouse Effect works on the premise that greenhouse gases trap heat that should have left Earth. It doesn't produce heat, it just keeps more of it here. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat travels into areas where there is less heat. More heat doesn't create more cold, it results in less cold.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#1051 [url]

yes - but there is a little something called physics and earth's rotation that gets in the way of that.

The equatorial regions are the hottest because they're closer to the sun. Warm air rises, then cools and falls, but is pushed aside by the rising warm air.

Adding to that, then earth's rotation functions like a centrifuge, slinging warm air out the furthest around the equator. This is how the jet stream forms.

It looks like this: http://christianevidences.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jet-stream.jpg
You'll have to forgive that I use a creationist website for this - but it was the first that had that pic in google image search.

with a simpler version of the jet stream itself here : http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/images/jetstream2.jpg - this also sort of shows how those boundaries shift to fit mountain ranges and whatnot.


But ok, my point about global warmining causing cooling in some places: If you look at the big picture, you see that warm air rises, cools, then comes down. This produces things like the trans-atlantic trade winds.

Now, if the air gets warmer to begin with, say due to global warming, it'll cool even more and come down colder in the regions where it comes down. This can have a chilling effect in those regions - it might not be much, but colder air also falls faster, so it would change the flow patterns of where that air comes down. Its a lot of could-shoulda-woulda - but if it happens it would be really fucking bad.

Imagine if mainland US suddenly had to contend with temperatures and winters like what they get up in Canada? Or if the trade winds are altered, then ocean currents would take a hit, which could cause mass flooding all over the fucking place (which would sort of be nice, since I work in a company that provides flood protection solutions)

point is that a global increase in temperature isn't even. Some places get more hot than others, and everywhere the hot air cycles around - cooling and warming.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1052 [url]

The problem with what you're describing is heat doesn't teleport. It has to go from A to B like everything else. The Earth already has systems that even out air temperatures but they do not support extremes like you're describing. When large differences in temperatures exist between regions of air it creates tornadoes as the air masses reach a closer temperature. They don't just peacefully but separately co-exist. Airflow has nothing to do with which ends of the globe are as cold or hot as they are. The poles are colder than the rest of the world because they receive the least sunlight and the equator is the hottest because it receives the most.

The main problem with your example, though, is cold air isn't going to somehow come down colder than it already is while the Earth is getting hotter. The whole argument behind the greenhouse effect is air retains more heat. There's no way for air to retain more heat and less heat.

The whole system has to retain more heat if the greenhouse effect is real. Between radiation and convection that heat has to migrate everywhere it can. Heat isn't going to withdraw itself from some areas as a result of other areas being hotter. That's the exact opposite of what it does. In matter, heat moves from areas of higher concentration to lower concentration just as a consequence of how matter works. There's no scenario where you put a warm front and a cold front next to each other and you wind up with a warmer warm front and a colder cold front.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw . Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#1053 [url]

SmashLampjaw wrote:
Yeah, see, a lot of people reading my previous post may think I believe the world's doing fine. I am actually very concerned about the environment.

One of the problems with the Greenhouse Effect hoax (under its many names) is environmentalists basically put all their eggs in one basket. Having control over energy use is the end-all to their problems: they can redistribute wealth, shut down any industry they dislike, crush business, end meat eating, destroy the evil that is Capitalism, get free food and housing while they pursue their art, and oh yeah almost forgot fix the planet maybe. They basically got sucked in to this scheme that looked like it would solve all their problems. Instead it's led to people becoming so jaded against environmental issues that any real crisis to arise or any of the on-going ones will be totally ignored. Worse, anyone reporting these crises will be discredited by proximity to the on-going three decade hoax, so the handful of environmental activists who aren't bullshit artists have little hope of getting traction.

Fukushima has irradiated the entire Pacific Ocean and continues leaking radioactive waste into it even though the disaster hit 5 years ago. Is the world concerned about that? Because all I hear about are SUVs and cow farts cooking us to death in 2317.

Not to pick on Japan again, but we're running out of whales and they're still illegally killing them for meat while calling it "medical research" to get around the ban. Meanwhile I'm hearing claims that global warming causes terrorism in 2016, because sure, why not.

Honey bees are dying off in droves thanks to systemic pesticides, making it all the more likely we will soon have food shortages (and making it impossible to buy honey). I occasionally hear peeps about that while the people screaming about our shrinking ice caps pause for breath (even though the Antarctic grew non-stop through Global Warming and the Arctic has been growing again for years).

Then there's everything Monsanto has been doing directly and indirectly to the food supply. Oh, and the shit they've done to farmers. The subject on them would require its own thread and make me sound like a rabid leftist if you never saw any of my posts on another political subject. Yet how often do they make the news or take flak from politicians? I didn't even know they'd had a Supreme Court decision that allowed them to patent genes until I stumbled onto a documentary about them on Netflix. You'd think that kind of idiotic claptrap would get more press than a possible 2mm rise in sea levels being detected by a single island nation, but no.

Oh, and my favorite issue, the many, many birds killed by solar farms and wind power. The wind power industry got a blanket pardon from Obama after it was revealed they'd killed thousands of endangered birds including American eagles. Talk about symbolism, eh? Of course, we can't protect birds from renewable energy because OMG CO2 REDUCTION OR WE ALL DIE, so that one barely made the news.

The list goes on and on, but nobody can be mobilized to do anything because the left's fear-mongering about CLIMATE DOOMSDAY drowns everything else out and obliterates any credibility a real environmentalist movement might otherwise have.

And this is to a large degree why I think that global warming, right or wrong, is something of a lost concept. It becomes this focal distraction that people get caught up in and argue about back and forth, with no real hope of either side convincing the other - all while they perhaps agree on 90% of things more pertinent, more solveable, and more immediate than what's being talked about; it's a convenient smokescreen to ignore and disregard other things, because it becomes this matter of utmost tribal importance. I personally think that human impact can contribute to the greenhouse effect - even if the majority of it extends from water vapor, we may be speeding up a more natural process of heating and cooling and in turn make it more unstable. But if someone disagrees with me? We maybe have at it for a little, but then I move on to something else. In the process, we can find these other issues and bring them into the spotlight - and getting them solved would have some observably positive effects on the world, whether or not you believe in global warming. 

It frustrates me because it happens so frequently, so often, on things that people fall into so easily. BLM becomes this giant stupid clusterfuck, when there's judicial abuse that both sides can acknowledge and want to fix - both in the way that police outfits are structured and funded, and the way that the legal system works in and of itself. Yet all you hear are the fucking black sepratist BLA idiots (in fairness, the movement has by now ejected many moderates it grabbed before) and the blue lives matter people who insist that everything's just peachy with the cops and nothing at all could be improved - those two extremes get the fore. Feminism, which disregards not just the issues of women global, but the issues of women in suburbs or rural areas, is this concept that's been so perverted by all of the idiots that got involved with it, things that are otherwise uncontestable - we should live in a meritocritous society that doesn't pay any particular heed to race, gender, sexuality, that we should have an open society where people are free to persue their passions without being barred on the basis of gender, that the government and justice should not change based around those - have been thrown up into the air while all of the focus is on inplacable feminutters and the whiniest of manchildren MRAs. Yet most people could hold an honest discussion about gender, problems, advantages, progress, etc - no problem. LGBT rights are now concentrated on this less-than-1% of the population schmuck, and on issues that I would wager most of the people in that group don't really give a shit about; there's almost complete disregard, again, for any of these issues globally, suburban-ly, rurally, or even the issues still faced in liberal strongholds - increasingly the only focus is either on what the far-right cauldron-stirrers want to prattle on about or what the far-left walking glass houses want to fall to pieces over today. Yet you could get most people together and have a meaningful, mature conversation about it, again, without much issue. 

But anytime something like this happens - any time you dredge out any of the real problems that do exist - you'll get some sod on one side or the other who tries to drive people to one of these issues, and everyone goes batshit and fixates wholly and totally on them. The left is the one you see do this the most, probably because the left has the larger media share and as such more visibility. But in conversation, I see it happen on the right frequently as well - if I point out, say, how Trump's proposed wall would be ineffective, a massive waste of taxpayer money, and extremely vulnerable to electoral disruption, before I can make any headway with that issue someone'll throw it into a discussion about illegal immigration and everyone starts hooting and hollaring and adopting what their thought-leaders tell them to say. Nevermind that discussing the concept of the wall in and of itself has little do with the ethics of borders or immigration. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,165

#1054 [url]

I think you're getting at what is, IMO, the biggest problem in public life that we have right now; the very concept of public discourse has been destroyed. As with most things, I think of confluence of factors are to blame, but I think the one that's had the biggest impact is that when the far left started really agitating and attacking moderates, it basically destroyed any room for negotiation. The alt right was more or less a response to that destruction; if you can't talk, you may as well plant your feet and refuse to budge. Which is far from an ideal solution when you're trying to find optimal solutions to problems.

i could go into detail in different contributing factors, but this is something that I'm still trying to figure out. 

Quote    Reply   

#1055 [url]

plarblman wrote:
I think you're getting at what is, IMO, the biggest problem in public life that we have right now; the very concept of public discourse has been destroyed. As with most things, I think of confluence of factors are to blame, but I think the one that's had the biggest impact is that when the far left started really agitating and attacking moderates, it basically destroyed any room for negotiation. The alt right was more or less a response to that destruction; if you can't talk, you may as well plant your feet and refuse to budge. Which is far from an ideal solution when you're trying to find optimal solutions to problems.

i could go into detail in different contributing factors, but this is something that I'm still trying to figure out. 

The 24 hour news cycle and social media hasn't helped either - they do not give you time to consider things, to research things, to have an in-house debate before someone comes and demands a statement or an opinion.

news outlets have to push stories faster, to avoid being left behind and losing clicks and viewers - and on social media lies and random click-bait can spread much faster than well-researched articles because TL:DR

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#1056 [url]

Like I said, fake science is a very old and big industry.  Maybe some of you have heard of "N-rays":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

This theory was quickly discredited, as was the Piltdown Man when the technology finally emerged to prove the fossils were definitely faked.  But you cannot discredit "global warming" so readily, since there is no clear way to prove that it is a fake.  And people still believe that President Kennedy was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald despite the overwhelming evidence that he did.

​Michael Crichton might well have been an asshole, but that does not discredit the proof he provided against global warmign in State Of Fear.  Ahd he himself proved that the hysteria started not coincidentally after the Cold War had ended and there was no longer reason to fear a nuclear war.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#1057 [url]

webkilla wrote:

plarblman wrote:
I think you're getting at what is, IMO, the biggest problem in public life that we have right now; the very concept of public discourse has been destroyed. As with most things, I think of confluence of factors are to blame, but I think the one that's had the biggest impact is that when the far left started really agitating and attacking moderates, it basically destroyed any room for negotiation. The alt right was more or less a response to that destruction; if you can't talk, you may as well plant your feet and refuse to budge. Which is far from an ideal solution when you're trying to find optimal solutions to problems.

i could go into detail in different contributing factors, but this is something that I'm still trying to figure out. 

The 24 hour news cycle and social media hasn't helped either - they do not give you time to consider things, to research things, to have an in-house debate before someone comes and demands a statement or an opinion.

news outlets have to push stories faster, to avoid being left behind and losing clicks and viewers - and on social media lies and random click-bait can spread much faster than well-researched articles because TL:DR

Maybe it has always been like this, but there has been an increase of not waiting until all the facts when reaching conclusions. I understand speculation, but you shouldnt riot until all evidence has gathered.

 Why is it that social media/internet activivity seems to be making extremists out of people? I know there has been hardcore people out there, but there seems to be an increase of people not being critical of the politics or interests. I could swear not that long ago, you could go to someone who is a fan of something and explain why you don't like something, and they would at least respect your position. Now, you just get called ignorant and "You just dont get it." as the common defense mechanism even amongst casual fans for offering criticisism. (Look at the Dark Souls fanbase and you will see what I mean.)

But political extremism is getting really bad.

Remember Jontron? While he may have gotten into trouble with his political discourse with the left, he himself is actually a pretty liberal guy. I remember one time he tweeted that when Tucker Carlson and Bill Nye debated about climate change, he thought that Bill Nye's position that man made climate change was real was stronger that Tuckers that it wasnt man made. I dont entirely agree with Jontrons position, but he was respectable and rational, and didnt resort to calling the other side ignorant or what not. He even posted this: "I understand skepticism but I really never understood climate change denial, to me it seems entirely plausible" to show that while he believes in mand made global warming, he understand skepticicm, just not flat-out denial that the climate is changing, which I agree with.

Then, of course, plenty of people were pissed off by his post. Not so much by the skeptics, but by people who agreed with his position, but thought that Jontron saying that he understands skeptisism was asinine. Assholes, he agrees with you! 

When did we become a bunch of 4 year old who still do not understand different points of view?   

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#1058 [url]

ohitsyou wrote:

Remember Jontron? While he may have gotten into trouble with his political discourse with the left, he himself is actually a pretty liberal guy. I remember one time he tweeted that when Tucker Carlson and Bill Nye debated about climate change, he thought that Bill Nye's position that man made climate change was real was stronger that Tuckers that it wasnt man made. I dont entirely agree with Jontrons position, but he was respectable and rational, and didnt resort to calling the other side ignorant or what not. He even posted this: "I understand skepticism but I really never understood climate change denial, to me it seems entirely plausible" to show that while he believes in mand made global warming, he understand skepticicm, just not flat-out denial that the climate is changing, which I agree with.


Then, of course, plenty of people were pissed off by his post. Not so much by the skeptics, but by people who agreed with his position, but thought that Jontron saying that he understands skeptisism was asinine. Assholes, he agrees with you! 

When did we become a bunch of 4 year old who still do not understand different points of view?   

[url=

Like in the video, the reason people who claim global warming in real get so defensive and hostile is because they don't want to admit they've been believing in a lie.  They're just as bad as young Earth creationists.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1059 [url]

Working on my to-do list. It's going to take longer than I wanted but I'm going to be on it steadily from now, so there will be progressive progress.

Debates about global warming do tend to go round and round a bit too, I think we can do better and smash that paradigm.

Yes, this video is at least tangentially topical, at least in relation to that last statement. I thought it was a nice metaphor.

[url=

Quote    Reply   

#1060 [url]

RE:

Long Tom wrote:
ohitsyou wrote:
Remember Jontron? While he may have gotten into trouble with his political discourse with the left, he himself is actually a pretty liberal guy. I remember one time he tweeted that when Tucker Carlson and Bill Nye debated about climate change, he thought that Bill Nye's position that man made climate change was real was stronger that Tuckers that it wasnt man made. I dont entirely agree with Jontrons position, but he was respectable and rational, and didnt resort to calling the other side ignorant or what not. He even posted this: "I understand skepticism but I really never understood climate change denial, to me it seems entirely plausible" to show that while he believes in mand made global warming, he understand skepticicm, just not flat-out denial that the climate is changing, which I agree with.


Then, of course, plenty of people were pissed off by his post. Not so much by the skeptics, but by people who agreed with his position, but thought that Jontron saying that he understands skeptisism was asinine. Assholes, he agrees with you! 

When did we become a bunch of 4 year old who still do not understand different points of view?   

[url=

Like in the video, the reason people who claim global warming in real get so defensive and hostile is because they don't want to admit they've been believing in a lie.  They're just as bad as young Earth creationists.


But which lie: that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, or that Humanity will be doomed unless drastic measures were taken?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help