Damn I didn't even notice the fucking solar system analogy. There are 8 planets in our solar system. This has been determined by the International Astronomical Union. There's evidence that a shadow planet exists but we can only sense gravitational disturbances and have no proof beyond that. Pluto is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper Belt and it's one of 5 that we've discovered thus far. Many more of them exist out there which is why we downgraded it to a dwarf planet since we'd wind up with fucking millions of planets if we described Pluto as such. Jesus christ man. If you're gonna make a fucking analogy, make a good one.
Pretty sure he's the guy that bragged about not going to college and called those who did brainwashed.
No, You Weren’t Imagining It: 2016 Was Very, Very Hot In the U.S., 2016 was a year of record high temperatures. Globally, it’ll likely be the warmest year on record. 01/05/2017 09:46 am ET | Updated 8 minutes ago Dominique Mosbergen Reporter, The Huffington Post X warmest year on record ― making it the third straight year of record-breaking heat. Thierry Orban/Getty Images As temperatures soared to 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the Paris heat wave in August 2016, children cooled off in a fountain in Parc Andre Citroen. The ignominious title should come as no surprise. From January to December, 2016 was marked by record-breaking high temperatures worldwide. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Botswana, India, Niger and Iraq experienced their hottest temperatures ever recorded. And heat waves, many of them deadly, charred parts of Britain, France, South Africa, the U.S. and regions like Southeast Asia. The poles were not spared from the heat. In November, for instance, sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic reached record lows. Scientists called it an “almost unprecedented” event at the time. STR/AFP/Getty Images Last summer, the India Meteorological Department recorded the country’s hottest temperature ever: 51 degrees Celsius (or 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the city of Phalodi, Rajasthan, on May 19. David McNew/Getty Images Hundreds of homes were destroyed and thousands of people were evacuated as a result of California’s deadly wildfires last year. Climate change has been linked to an increase in forest fires in the western U.S. in recent years. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/Getty Images A woman shades herself from the sun in Washington D.C. during a heat wave that scorched parts of the northeastern United States in August 2016. In the U.S., high temperatures were a feature throughout the year. Every month in 2016 had significantly more record high temperatures than record lows, according to a Climate Central report this week. “The blistering pace of record-high temperatures across the country is the clearest sign of 2016’s extreme heat. Record-daily highs outpaced record-daily lows by 5.7-to-1 in 2016,” the nonprofit news organization wrote, citing preliminary data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. “That’s the largest ratio in 95 years of record keeping. Put another way, 85 percent of extreme temperature records set in 2016 were of the hot variety.” Last year was likely the second-hottest year on record for the U.S. (2012 is the hottest). A staggering 98 percent of weather stations across the country recorded a warmer-than-normal year, Climate Central said in December. 2016 will likely rank as a top 10 warmest year in every state. The World Meteorological Organization warned in its report last year that climate change is not just spurring global temperature spikes but also fueling extreme weather events and climate disasters. “Because of climate change, the occurrence and impact of extreme events has risen,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said in a statement. “‘Once in a generation’ heatwaves and flooding are becoming more regular.” The WMO said human-induced global warming had contributed to more than half of all extreme weather events studied in recent years, while the probability of extreme heat had increased 10 times or more in some cases.
You guys should be able to communicate an argument for yourselves in your own words -not constantly link to other sites. I thought they taught that in college still but apparently not. You kids are too precious to know how clueless you really are.
Haha - I went to college dumbass. Everytime I think people can't be this stupid you guys prove me wrong.
And you're a known what? You seem so angry every time you post and come off as a meathead. Also my family life is great and my g/f is hotter than yours. Peace faggot.
It was actually a perfect analogy - and your post above only proves that. But I'm done arguing with dummies. It was fun but not that fun. At least you guys are just as easy as you've always been. Doesn't take much to get the libtards stirred up.
My post proves it? Are you trying to say "we thought pluto was a planet for decades, and now new information shows it isn't one?" Is that your analogy? That once this new information comes to light, then we can completely disprove man's role in climate change? You realize how backwards that is right? No one in the scientific community was saying "there are 9 planets, but we really have no clue what the fuck we're talking about, so we really shouldn't even make that claim in the first place." That's what you're advocating right now. Everything points to our role in climate change, but there's a slight glimmer of a reason why that might be wrong, so we should just toss out the entire fucking concept.
who said this global warming stuff we talk about ? a democrate - republican , bitch or fore-real interest ? you choose , -me and my guy would be interested to know your thoughts . course u have to wait for a respoce but ? a little humbleness will not hurt u will it ?
You ask for proof, its given, and you don't read any of it? Why the fuck do you care about anyone in here's opinion rather than reading the experts' point of view thats linked? And you come in here and call us stupid
Drive By Dunning-Kruger wants everyone to do their own climate science research and put together their own thesis with supporting evidence. He doesn't buy into the validity of the work of the world's top climate scientists but we are to believe he'd trust a TMB poster's research results so long as it actually came from a TMB poster and not a professional.
Also, for the record, colleges and universities are generally very big on using outside sources to support your argument in an academic paper. In fact, if you didn't do that and only cited yourself on a research paper then you'd almost certainly receive a poor grade. Hope that helps you better understand academics, DBDK.
Keep coming up with as many reasons as you wish for why you are incapable of synthesizing an original thought. As far as pretending that the progressive orthodoxy on climate change is shared by all scientists or that this is "settled science" (in the words of your dear leader) that is laughable and deomonstrably untrue. There are plenty of experts who dissent from the groupthink that has come to typify the "debate" on climate change and the data is at best mixed in terms of whether or not any actual warming is occurring. Your attempts to pass your opinions off as facts is absurd and let's be honest - the climate isn't your agenda in any case.
Some people literally do not understand what science is or how the process works. That's a root problem of this so-called debate. The hypothesis and any accompanying evidence to support it means nothing to them because they don't understand the scientific method in the first place.
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand - but keep self-congratulating at your leisure. You're not the only one who understands the scientific method but I realize these sorts of replies keep you from having to deal with reality.
Just a quick reminder you haven't addressed a single thing posted earlier when you asked for evidence supporting climate change. You then moved the goal posts and said you wanted research from someone on this board instead of an actual expert. Now, you're continuing to not address the things you specifically asked people to share with you. Just a reminder. And my use of "literally" was sadly accurate. You are a figureative door knob of a person but you literally don't seem to understand how science works.
Are we calling it "global warming" or "climate change" now? It's a convenient sleight of hand don't you think? Let's be clear - I am not saying the globe isn't warming due to human activity. And I am not saying it is. The truth is we don't know whether it's warming at all and if it is what is causing it. My problem is with you know-nothings vociferously asserting that the globe is definitely warming and that you know exactly why it is happening. Neither assertion is true or provable at this juncture no matter how hard you try to make it so.
The market will fix it. I love it so much. Drive by Dunning, what were Ayn Rand's thoughts on the environment? You're the most well-read guy on the board so you're the one to ask.
See, here's the problem. You're so deep in this partisan politics stuff that you assume any information released that concludes man is having an effect on the climate is from a bunch of biased and subjective liberals when in actuality it's empirical evidence that has no inherent political biases. But you disregard it as if it does. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans are having some effect on the climate. The degree to which is what's being determined through further science and research. But for you to act like there isn't enough evidence or enough of a consensus yet to begin acting is absolutely foolish. That's like being in your home and feeling uncomfortably warm but instead of turning on a fan or your AC in response you're just gonna sit on the couch and wait to see if things balance out in an hour. They might not and it might actually get way warmer in your house but despite thermometers saying it's 99° in there you don't want to accept a conclusion that your home's temperature is a problem yet so you're just gonna sit and wait.
Forget ISIS, forget Russia, the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization for humanity's future existence.
I don't think any reasonable person would dispute humans are having some impact on the climate. The degree of that impact and the long-term implications thereof are very much in dispute.
This is the kind of extremist idiocy that I hope you guys will continue to spew - it may ensure you never win another national election. The stupidity and moral confusion of this statement is beautiful on the one hand and completely terrifying on the other.
And again, whether any warming at all has occurred in the past two decades or so is also very much in dispute.
True but the Republican party is actually littered with those unreasonable people. And our future President is one who once tweeted that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Is that the party you usually support? Is that the party you want continuing to look into the possibility that climate change is a very serious and imminent threat?
Yup. And the people it will hurt the most are the ones that voted for them. And coastal people around the world. It's gonna really suck for them. I'm sure we'll welcome these refugees with open arms though.
Of the "serious and imminent" threats facing the nation and the world climate change doesn't even register for me and for many others. Way, way down the list. And unless you think you can get the Chinese and the Indians to stop burning the shit out of fossil fuels it's a fait accompli regardless. North American emmissions have been trending downward for years - we aren't even close to the biggest part of the "problem". My guess is that our children's children will look back a hundred years from now and conclude that it was all much ado about very little. I am smart enough to know I could be wrong but we have much bigger problems that are objectively serious as opposed to something that may or may not be. Remember it wasn't long ago that scientists were predicting calamities that were to be happening NOW. None of them have happened. History is replete with examples of doomsday predictions (Malthus anyone?) that never came to pass. Most don't. If it really is the end of the world the so-called progressives will shoulder much of the blame as they politicized this issue from the start and used it as a way to attack their ultimate evil - free markets and capitalism. Blaming conservatives for politicizing the debate is comical.
Actually the coastal people (as you call them) voted largely Democratic. Don't you guys read the fucking news?
You have yet to cite a single thing supporting your asinine opinions. Your feelings are not equal to facts.
Once again, not addressing the points or answering questions you were asked. Instead you're moving onto other issues and disregarding the potential damage of something you just said we don't even know the extent of. You don't know how bad it might be but you somehow know it isn't that important. Then you compared doomsday predictions from random people in the past to the results of climate science as if they're equal when any reasonable person knows they're not. One is based on observable and reproducible results and the other is blind guessing. And to top it all off you're posturing to be able to blame the Democrats in 2117 for what the Republicans didn't care about in 2017. "Hey, the world may be ending but you liberals are somewhat responsible too!" -literally how some people view what should be nonpartisan global issues
But he feels like his great grandkids will look back on this and say it was much ado about nothing. He could be wrong though, and by admitting that he displays his intelligence and willingness to be open on the issue, unlike us dumbass liberals who have bought it all hook line and sinker.
You think global warming is (in your words) maybe the end of the world. I think that's stupid. We have no need to debate any further. Good day sir.
Before you run off and tell yourself how smart you are and how dumb those libs are, here's an easy citation for you to back up these claims you make. Show me where I said "maybe the end of the world" or anything like that. Which of my words were those that you're referencing because I don't recall saying that?