******Official politics thread ******

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

good job describing climate change

good job describing climate change

uh dude are you living in a full blown fantasy land?

the only parts of western europe with their shit together when it comes to energy run mostly nuclear, which the political ideology you ascribe to demonizes heavily. if you're a climate change cuck you're supporting anti-nuclear. do you mean germany? didn't they lose billions and end up with energy scarcities forcing them to buy energy from other nations when they switched to solar? because yeah dude i don't think that worked out very well for them. hm yes what a shining example, a country the size of the state of Washington that crippled itself with green energy which is also undergoing massive social and governmental unrest.

I'm not going to discuss a scientific theory with someone so gullible that they earnestly see national salvation in Donald Trump, or even see him as willing or capable of advancing our interests in a positive way-- and sees it all within the scope of alt-right talking points and Fox News Republicanism.

If you want to call eachother dumbass that's a conversation more suited to your ability.

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not going to discuss a scientific theory with someone so gullible that they earnestly see national salvation in Donald Trump, or even see him as willing or capable of advancing our interests in a positive way-- and sees it all within the scope of alt-right talking points and Fox News Republicanism.

If you want to call eachother dumbass that's a conversation more suited to your ability.

Nice smugpost from the guy who couldn't answer what projection or response model climate change theory is based on.

You don't want to discuss a scientific theory because you don't know fucking shit and you'll get the floor mopped so hard if you engage. You're not capable of it. Low IQ low content poster.

[Xaanka]

is the guy displaying blind faith in shit he doesn't understand accusing me of having blind faith in a news channel i don't watch? lol the irony is palpable

[Xaanka]

please explain how green energy helps anything when it's mathematically impossible for green energy to reverse climate change, based on currently accepted projections?

it's an extension of virtue signaling

as Lune has displayed pretty clearly they treat climate change theory as a religion. it's necessary to establish original sin.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice smugpost from the guy who couldn't answer what projection or response model climate change theory is based on.

You don't want to discuss a scientific theory because you don't know fucking shit and you'll get the floor mopped so hard if you engage. Low IQ low content poster.

Are you vocal about spectroscopy being bullshit because you don't understand or can't verbalize the physical and chemical concepts they rely on?

If I tell you we know DNA is shaped as a double helix but I'm a little cloudy on the X-ray crystallography we used to get that information, am I unqualified to understand that information? Am I unqualified to tell someone who thinks DNA is made out of skittles they are wrong?

I know a lot about climate science. I don't know everything. I do know there is a scientific consensus around the current theories, and it has not been falsified, and it has not been replaced by a superior theory. I'm certainly not going to dig up all the relevant facts and evidence for you because I honestly don't give a shit about convincing you or even making the case to anyone who would see it in this medium.

We know the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has nearly doubled due to human emissions since 1750 with abundant records and evidence of this. We know higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases, over the long term, trap more heat and cause planetary warming, even taking into account various reservoirs and positive and negative feedback loops.

Those two concepts have never been compellingly falsified. Even without talking about projections and timelines, that's enough information to be wary of how much CO2 we're unsequestering and pumping into the atmosphere.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by originalman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what if co2 and xenoestrogens get us more bubble butt boipucci tho

That's why I'm not totally opposed to global warming as an event, it's already too late, and it could actually make things better after all the upheaval.

Xenoestrogens though personally I don't want tits and testosterone does great things to the mind body and soul. I want my kids and my kids kids to grow up in a world where they can get the default hormones if they choose to

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you vocal about spectroscopy being bullshit because you don't understand or can't verbalize the physical and chemical concepts they rely on?

No but I wouldn't go and tell someone who has actually taken the time to learn and understand these things that they are a bad person for coming to a different conclusion about something they know more about than myself.

If I tell you we know DNA is shaped as a double helix but I'm a little cloudy on the X-ray crystallography we used to get that information, am I unqualified to understand that information? Am I unqualified to tell someone who thinks DNA is made out of skittles they are wrong?

You'd be about as qualified as a bank teller or mcdonalds line cook. You can have the correct answer and it means little, understanding demonstrating and replicating it is 99% of science.

I know a lot about climate science. I don't know everything. I do know there is a scientific consensus around the current theories, and it has not been falsified, and it has not been replaced by a superior theory. I'm certainly not going to dig up all the relevant facts and evidence for you because I honestly don't give a shit about convincing you or even making the case to anyone who would see it in this medium.

But climate projections and response models change almost yearly. A climate response model was proven to be falsified for political reasons, right before the Paris agreement was signed. not to mention climategate email leaks 1 or 2. Superior theories have replaced old ones; do you really think we're still entering an ice age? what about all the early 2000's global warming projections which proved to be wrong in their predictions a decade later? Remember an inconvenient truth? Kilimanjaro still has ice on it dog.

Since you know about the consensus, you also surely aware that about 18% of climate scientists, over half of geologists etc are skeptical of climate change theory yes?

We know the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has nearly doubled due to human emissions since 1750 with abundant records and evidence of this. We know higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases, over the long term, trap more heat and cause planetary warming, even taking into account various reservoirs and positive and negative feedback loops.

yes and the military injecting silver and aluminum into the atmosphere to try to combat global warming has no impact right?

nobody denies an increase in carbon, nor that adding carbon to the atmosphere doesn't heat the world. everyone believes in the greenhouse effect. what i'm calling bullshit on are the specifics. you're not only strawmanning me, you're strawmanning your own argument by oversimplifying it so much. the greenhouse effect isn't what we're debating here, what i'm disagreeing with are specific climate projections, and climate response models.

you're surely aware that historical co2 levels measured from the ice core samples contradict projections climate change theory is based on, yes? you're aware that physical evidence always holds more weight than a math projection right? please don't be anti science.

Those two concepts have never been compellingly falsified. Even without talking about projections and timelines, that's enough information to be wary of how much CO2 we're unsequestering and pumping into the atmosphere.

that's not the argument anyone's making

[AzzarTheGod]

In the face of widespread anti-aging clinics and widespread TRT operations in even the most hardcore blue states such as Massachusetts, time to reschedule testosterone.

Funny how the script flipped on ol' Joe Biden since 1990. Everything literally upended on his dark ages leftwing virtue signalling ass. A 180 has caused his landmark legislation to pale.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No but I wouldn't go and tell someone who has actually taken the time to learn and understand these things that they are a bad person for coming to a different conclusion about something they know more about than myself.



You'd be about as qualified as a bank teller or mcdonalds line cook. You can have the correct answer and it means little, understanding demonstrating and replicating it is 99% of science.



But climate projections and response models change almost yearly. A climate response model was proven to be falsified for political reasons, right before the Paris agreement was signed. not to mention climategate email leaks 1 or 2. Superior theories have replaced old ones; do you really think we're still entering an ice age? what about all the early 2000's global warming projections which proved to be wrong in their predictions a decade later? Remember an inconvenient truth? Kilimanjaro still has ice on it dog.

Since you know about the consensus, you also surely aware that about 18% of climate scientists, over half of geologists etc are skeptical of climate change theory yes?

yes and the military injecting silver and aluminum into the atmosphere to try to combat global warming has no impact right?

nobody denies an increase in carbon, nor that adding carbon to the atmosphere doesn't heat the world. everyone believes in the greenhouse effect. what i'm calling bullshit on are the specifics. you're not only strawmanning me, you're strawmanning your own argument by oversimplifying it so much. the greenhouse effect isn't what we're debating here, what i'm disagreeing with are specific climate projections, and climate response models.

you're surely aware that historical co2 levels measured from the ice core samples contradict projections climate change theory is based on, yes? you're aware that physical evidence always holds more weight than a math projection right? please don't be anti science.

that's not the argument anyone's making

If that's the case, we have nothing to argue about, because I question the specifics too. When I pillory "climate science deniers" I'm talking about people who reject the entire model, ie, human emissions aren't causing warming, not the people who question the projections or the personal biases and motives of these scientists and climate organizations (Although most of them are doing so for selfish reasons, not a pursuit of truth).

It just so happens many of the prominent voices on the matter (for example, Ted Cruz), fall into the former, unacceptable, category, as do many of the American voters who listen to those people.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by originalman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you have this retard academic faith in the population of usa's intellect. surface has to be climate change denial to achieve your goal. interior is realizing a world government must be instituted to protect planet and chinese insects can't be entrusted w that duty. THAT is realpolitik.

You're an imperialist globalist fascist pal. learn to have a public and private position. do you REALLY intend on subjugating the planet without telling any lies? or are you just hooked on the sound of your voice lecturing science facts like tyrone degrassi?

I had a CWA (cardioWokeUlar accident) after reading this, aka a "Woke"