And the number of deaths would be lower without temperature increase by man. — Haglund

So in the graph we already see a sharp decline in death, yet without a 1 degree temp increase the decline would be even sharper? :grin: so, unfalsifiable.

climate change, if a scientific hypothesis, can't be, for that very fact, the only game in town. Are there other hypotheses that are...well...inelegant, too complex, etc.? — Agent Smith

How's about "climate is always changing and a 1 degree increase is positive, yet so minuscule that there's really nothing to talk about".

How's about "climate is always changing and a 1 degree increase is positive, yet so minuscule that there's really nothing to talk about". — stoicHoneyBadger

You mean to say all this climate emergency hullabaloo is much ado about nothing? I would've loved to agree, but then all those papers, reports & seminars; no smoke without fire, a grain or two of truth, no?

Too, there's a thread on chaos theory and last I checked it had very much to do with the weather! Does chaos not extend to climate? :chin: Oh, I completely forgot, there are patterns in chaos. I could be wrong though; do lemme know if I am.

So in the graph we already see a sharp decline in death, yet without a 1 degree temp increase the decline would be even sharper? :grin: — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes. If man wouldn't have fucked up the atmosphere, there would have been less deaths. Because of the fires and floods it created wouldn't have happened then.

You mean to say all this climate emergency hullabaloo is much ado about nothing? — Agent Smith

Yes.
Journalists are getting clicks on scary titles. Politicians get votes from scared people. Green energy shills are getting government payouts. Celebrities get to fly around in private jets, telling people how they should live. Even Austin the weirdo, who lives in his mom's basement, can walk around with a placard and feel like he is saving the earth.

Yes. If man wouldn't have fucked up the atmosphere, there would have been less deaths. Because of the fires and floods it created wouldn't have happened then. — Haglund

sounds as unreasonable as "if people would have prayed more to God, there would have been less deaths." :D

sounds as unreasonable as "if people would have prayed more to God, there would have been less deaths." — stoicHoneyBadger

If instead of fucking up the planet they had prayed, this would be the case indeed! :grin:


Anyone denying the unbalanced, irreversible, definitive, relentless imprint on nature caused by man is in denial.

If instead of fucking up the planet they had prayed, this would be the case indeed! :grin:
Anyone denying the unbalanced, irreversible, definitive, relentless imprint on nature caused by man is in denial. — Haglund

Aren't men also part of the same nature?

Notice how you are moving the goalposts. Ok, temperature changes some 10 degrees every day/night cycle. It changes 50 degrees during the year. Having a 20 degree difference between average temperatures withing two sequential years is not unusual. Yet having a 1 degree increase in 30 years is the end of the world? Does that sound reasonable? — stoicHoneyBadger

Translation: How can 1 degree (such a small number) be such a BIG deal (not a small number)?

It took 50 years and thousands of scientists, and now finally the breakthrough insight we’ve all overlooked — pointed out by a guy on the Internet.

No need to learn about the subject.

Let me try: quantum mechanics seems spooky and unreasonable. How do we know what happens at small levels? Has anyone seen these things?

Bam. Refuted. And don’t tell me to read about it — I don’t need to read about things that are so OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. Quantum mechanics…climate change…electromagnetism…all on par with horoscopes and unicorns.

Yes.
Journalists are getting clicks on scary titles. Politicians get votes from scared people. Green energy shills are getting government payouts. Celebrities get to fly around in private jets, telling people how they should live. Even Austin the weirdo, who lives in his mom's basement, can walk around with a placard and feel like he is saving the earth. — stoicHoneyBadger

:lol: One surefire way of convincing us that there's truth in these climate change claims is to make a prediction and see if it comes true. Einstein did it with his theory of relativity - remember the solar eclipse of 1919.

Journalists are getting clicks on scary titles. Politicians get votes from scared people. Green energy shills are getting government payouts. Celebrities get to fly around in private jets, telling people how they should live. Even Austin the weirdo, who lives in his mom's basement, can walk around with a placard and feel like he is saving the earth. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes— it’s all a big hoax. Overblown. Thankfully we have experts on here like up to lead us down the right path with your intuitions. “small number no make big effect.”

Brilliant.

For some real reporting on why climate deniers like this troll even exist, and repeat the stupid bullshit they’re told, see the latest Frontline piece. No reading involved— so that should help. Big oil has been spreading misinformation for decades.

Quantum mechanics…climate change…electromagnetism…all on par with horoscopes and unicorns. — Xtrix

The thing you don't want to grasp here is the ability to verify a theory in an experiment.

One surefire way of convincing us that there's truth in these climate change claims is to make a prediction and see if it comes true. Einstein did it with his theory of relativity - remember the solar eclipse of 1919. — Agent Smith

Yeap. And so far all the "we have 3 years left!" predictions pretty much have failed.

And predictions have been spot on. Despite those who repeat denial propaganda want to claim.

https://amp.onlineathens.com/amp/2014160007

And predictions have been spot on. Despite those who repeat denial propaganda want to claim.

https://amp.onlineathens.com/amp/2014160007 — Xtrix

Ask and astrologer if his predictions are accurate and I have no doubt he will show you a few that actually came true. If you want a scientific approach, look for those that failed.

The thing you don't want to grasp here is the ability to verify a theory in an experiment. — stoicHoneyBadger

Climate change is a fact, not a “theory” (a term you don’t understand).

There’s a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the rate of change is outside natural variability. The spike in global average temperature is the result of the industrial Revolution — burning fossil fuels, increasing deforestation through agricultural practices, etc.

There’s a thing called the Internet where you can LEARN about this stuff.

Or continue on being a buffoon. Works either way for me.

Since 1992, the global sea level has risen on average 2.9 millimeters a year. That’s a total of 78.3 millimeters, according to NOAA.

Penn State University meteorologist Michael Mann argued that we underestimated the rate of ice sheet collapse, which has "implications for future sea-level rise."

There was a video of this Mann guy talking in front of congress(?), promising Washington DC going underwater in the near future. Somehow it got dialed down to less than 8cm. :D

Ask and astrologer if his predictions are accurate and I have no doubt he will show you a few that actually came true. If you want a scientific approach, look for those that failed. — stoicHoneyBadger

Or, if you want to stay a climate denier like you, just ignore everything that doesn’t fit that belief. That easy. Bam! “Science.”

Don’t worry your little head about it. I know you didn’t read the article — which is why it wasn’t meant for you.

Climate change is a fact, not a “theory” (a term you don’t understand).

There’s a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the rate of change is outside natural variability. The spike in global average temperature is the result of the industrial Revolution — burning fossil fuels, increasing deforestation through agricultural practices, etc.

There’s a thing called the Internet where you can LEARN about this stuff.

Or continue on being a buffoon. Works either way for me. — Xtrix

Seems you been learning too much stuff that's not very accurate. Some even manage to learn that men can turn into women by wishing so, on the internet. :D

There was a video of this Mann guy talking in front of congress(?), promising Washington DC going underwater in the near future. — stoicHoneyBadger

No, that’s just your idiotic claim. A claim repeated from whatever denialist bullshit you’ve gorged yourself on. Which is why you offer no references, no such video, etc.

“Al Gore claimed we’d all be dead by 2020! Hahaha! Fool!”

To climate denying cretins, facts don’t matter. It’s about what “feels” good. That’s all the science they care about.

Seems you been learning too much stuff that's not very accurate. — stoicHoneyBadger

:rofl:

Oh? Like what, specifically?

I won’t hold my breath.

that men can turn into women — stoicHoneyBadger

Quite obsessed with that issue, aren’t you. As I said before, I’m not interested in your transphobia.

Bro, if you want to be in a doomsday cult, that's up to you. It's not like I am interested in digging up 30 year or Mann or Gore videos to prove something.

Quite obsessed with that issue, aren’t you. As I said before, I’m not interested in your transphobia. — Xtrix

So now biology is called transphopbia? Talk about science denial. :D

It's not like I am interested in digging up 30 year or Mann or Gore videos to prove something. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah, exactly. Because those videos don’t exist. Nor do those idiot claims that you fabricated.

So not just a climate denier and transphobe, but a liar to boot. Nice trifecta.

You mean to say all this climate emergency hullabaloo is much ado about nothing?
— Agent Smith

Yes. — stoicHoneyBadger

Then you don't understand the impact of man, as the figures show you. Im not assigning any moral on how we should behave. Maybe it oughto happen. But the facts don't lie.

So now biology is called transphopbia? — stoicHoneyBadger

No— you repeatedly bringing the topic up is. Pretty obvious, actually.

But nevermind. Continue on with your pet culture war issue.

Too, there's a thread on chaos theory and last I checked it had very much to do with the weather! Does chaos not extend to climate? :chin: Oh, I completely forgot, there are patterns in chaos. I could be wrong though; do lemme know if I am. — Agent Smith

Yes. If you change the average T in a shirt time, the natural balance gets distorted. A small change, say 1 degree, leading to less patterns and more chaos.

Climate deniers don’t know about science or care about science. — Xtrix

Two types of deniers with whom it is misguided to talk about the science of man's negative impact on climate:

Those who have an enormous sense of entitlement.
For as long as their sense of entitlement is left intact, they won't change their mind.

The consequent Social Darwinists. To them, life is a struggle for survival, and only the strong survive. They take no issue with this.

To such people, the thought, "The climate situation is dire, we need to do something about it" never occurs, or at least it doesn't seem worth pursuing.

Yes. If you change the average T in a shirt time, the natural balance gets distorted. A small change, say 1 degree, leading to less patterns and more chaos — Haglund

Chaos, in my humble opinion, as some say it is, is "order undeciphered". That seems to be the crux of chaos theory, oui? The "randomness" is an illusion. Have you seen those colorful pictures of chaos? They don't seem chaotic; mayhaps it's a matter of scale. The quantum world, according to physicists, is one where chance rules, but at our scale, everything's as orderly as troops in formation.

Chaos, in my humble opinion, as some say it is, is "order undeciphered". That seems to be the crux of chaos theory, oui? — Agent Smith

Oui, bien sur. But. The beautiful patterns might be disrupted by a small and fast change, like 1 degree uprise in 10 years without falling back.

Oui, bien sur. But. The beautiful patterns might be disrupted by a small and fast change, like 1 degree uprise in 10 years without falling back. — Haglund

:ok: