STOP REPLYING TO THIS THREAD! I SHARED MY OPINION, IF YOU WANT TO SHARE YOURS THEN GO AHEAD, BUT STOP ARGUING BECAUSE IT'S JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Understand? Yes Care? No. If it's gonna get really fucked up I'll just leave a Post-it Note for my grand-grand-grand children with the words "ooops, I fucked up. Sorry" on it "
"Understand? Yes Care? No. If it's gonna get really fucked up I'll just leave a Post-it Note for my grand-grand-grand children with the words "ooops, I fucked up. Sorry" on it "
Haha yep, I don't really care what happens in the next generation either, I'll be dead! "
"Understand? Yes Care? No. If it's gonna get really fucked up I'll just leave a Post-it Note for my grand-grand-grand children with the words "ooops, I fucked up. Sorry" on it "
Haha yep, I don't really care what happens in the next generation either, I'll be dead! "
you will care when u have kids some day "
No I really won't because this is all just one big hoax that is made to believe by Democrats and the Government.
No I really won't because this is all just one big hoax that is made to believe by Democrats and the Government.
So the democrats in the US government have taken over 90% of the worlds business and all of the worlds government? SHIT. It's too late, better sign up to the democrat party before they start executing the detractors!
No I really won't because this is all just one big hoax that is made to believe by Democrats and the Government.
So the democrats in the US government have taken over 90% of the worlds business and all of the worlds government? SHIT. It's too late, better sign up to the democrat party before they start executing the detractors! "
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
What of the evidence that says otherwise? Are there not citations that could be provided?
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
What of the evidence that says otherwise? Are there not citations that could be provided? "
What do I need to provide? Th Earth gets warm, then cold, then warm, then cold, etc. etc. That's how it always has been, we have had ice ages, warm ages, ice ages, and now we're going through a warming, not MASS GLOBAL WARMING OF DEATH AND DOOM! Just a natural, warming, cycle.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
I would expect for every piece of evidence which shows that it is not occurring I can find ten times as many backing anthropogenic climate change.
But to be honest, I don't wish to get into an argument over this, you are obviously set in your belief that it is a load of rubbish, and any scientific evidence would not alter your thinking.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
What of the evidence that says otherwise? Are there not citations that could be provided? "
What do I need to provide? Th Earth gets warm, then cold, then warm, then cold, etc. etc. That's how it always has been, we have had ice ages, warm ages, ice ages, and now we're going through a warming, not MASS GLOBAL WARMING OF DEATH AND DOOM! Just a natural, warming, cycle. "
Yeah, but citations would be nicer. That's all I'm sayin'.
@ADTR_ZERO: Before you say that we're going through a natural warm cycle, you may be surprised to know that we have been in a warm season for the past 10,000 years. The typical cycle is 10,000 warm, 100,000 cold, 10,000 warm, etc. (that is a generalisation before anyone jumps on the specific numbers, but the point still stands), so we should be going back to cold (and global temperatures were beginning to decline prior to the industrial revolution).
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
I would expect for every piece of evidence which shows that it is not occurring I can find ten times as many backing anthropogenic climate change. But to be honest, I don't wish to get into an argument over this, you are obviously set in your belief that it is a load of rubbish, and any scientific evidence would not alter your thinking. "
Because big stories like this bring in big money.
I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm.
" @ADTR_ZERO: Before you say that we're going through a natural warm cycle, you may be surprised to know that we have been in a warm season for the past 10,000 years. The typical cycle is 10,000 warm, 100,000 cold, 10,000 warm, etc. (that is a generalisation before anyone jumps on the specific numbers, but the point still stands), so we should be going back to cold (and global temperatures were beginning to decline prior to the industrial revolution). "
Yeh pretty much.
The time is irrelevent, it's the point of it happening, whether after 5 years or 5,000.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
I would expect for every piece of evidence which shows that it is not occurring I can find ten times as many backing anthropogenic climate change. But to be honest, I don't wish to get into an argument over this, you are obviously set in your belief that it is a load of rubbish, and any scientific evidence would not alter your thinking. "
I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too?
Please please please find me a single scientist who believes this and has evidence.
" @ADTR_ZERO: Before you say that we're going through a natural warm cycle, you may be surprised to know that we have been in a warm season for the past 10,000 years. The typical cycle is 10,000 warm, 100,000 cold, 10,000 warm, etc. (that is a generalisation before anyone jumps on the specific numbers, but the point still stands), so we should be going back to cold (and global temperatures were beginning to decline prior to the industrial revolution). "
Yeh pretty much. The time is irrelevent, it's the point of it happening, whether after 5 years or 5,000. "
The timing isn't that irrelevant. But the biggest factor is the temperature range, we were already in a warm period! A further addition of warmth and rate of this extent is unprecedented.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
I would expect for every piece of evidence which shows that it is not occurring I can find ten times as many backing anthropogenic climate change. But to be honest, I don't wish to get into an argument over this, you are obviously set in your belief that it is a load of rubbish, and any scientific evidence would not alter your thinking. "
I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too?
Please please please find me a single scientist who believes this and has evidence. "
I don't think I need to. If you can't find one for yourself then well, do you ever leave the house? Or watch the news?
" @ADTR_ZERO: Before you say that we're going through a natural warm cycle, you may be surprised to know that we have been in a warm season for the past 10,000 years. The typical cycle is 10,000 warm, 100,000 cold, 10,000 warm, etc. (that is a generalisation before anyone jumps on the specific numbers, but the point still stands), so we should be going back to cold (and global temperatures were beginning to decline prior to the industrial revolution). "
Yeh pretty much. The time is irrelevent, it's the point of it happening, whether after 5 years or 5,000. "
The timing isn't that irrelevant. But the biggest factor is the temperature range, we were already in a warm period! A further addition of warmth and rate of this extent is unprecedented. "
And many scientists say the Earth will be collling soon. So yes it IS unprecedented, that's why the Earth should be cooling very soon.
Please please please find me a single scientist who believes this and has evidence. "
I don't think I need to. If you can't find one for yourself then well, do you ever leave the house? Or watch the news? "
I need to find a scientific paper saying that the world won't end in 2012?! Surely the null hypothesis is that it won't, as such you need to prove the hypothesis that it will. It's your call.
And as a scientist myself, yes I do read the news and leave the house.
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
The earth does go through cycles but currently we are detecting temperature change that is not accounted for by the earth's cycles. However these changes are miniscule (something like 0.006 degrees Celsius per year), so yes, global warming is still BS.
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! "
But mainstream media will say it does to make people believe.
" The earth does go through cycles but currently we are detecting temperature change that is not accounted for by the earth's cycles. However these changes are miniscule (something like 0.006 degrees Celsius per year), so yes, global warming is still BS. "
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! "
But mainstream media will say it does to make people believe. "
Then start listening to scientists and not the media. In which case you'll believe in anthropogenic climate change even more.
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! "
But mainstream media will say it does to make people believe. "
I know I blame mainstream media for a ton of shit, I'll be the first to say that I will do a live rifftrax of CNN when I'm bored. But we are talking about science, not mainstream media.
@ADTR_ZERO: You continue to claim that many scientists believe that the world is going to end in 2012 and that global warming is BS but you haven't given a name of any scientist or given us any facts or figures to support your argument.
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! "
But mainstream media will say it does to make people believe. "
Then start listening to scientists and not the media. In which case you'll believe in anthropogenic climate change even more. "
Really? Because the scientists I listened to spoke the truth about the media and said the earth is going through natural cycles, and spoke AGAINST global warming.
While on the other hand, media says global warming of death and doom.
The scientists you are listening too are telling you what the public wants to hear, and not the truth.
@ADTR_ZERO: No, I speak to scientists who have and are completing research on this very topic and actually believe that the media doesn't go far enough.
"Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! "
But mainstream media will say it does to make people believe. "
Then start listening to scientists and not the media. In which case you'll believe in anthropogenic climate change even more. "
Really? Because the scientists I listened to spoke the truth about the media and said the earth is going through natural cycles, and spoke AGAINST global warming. While on the other hand, media says global warming of death and doom. The scientists you are listening too are telling you what the public wants to hear, and not the truth. "
Really, are they climate scientists?
Seriously, I ask for citations of peer reviewed articles on this topic.
" @ADTR_ZERO: And what about all the scientific evidence and journals, I guess this is all a conspiracy too. Ignorance on anthropogenic climate change is mind-boggling at times. "
And what about the evidence that says otherwise? We have no solid foundation as to whether GW is real, but past climate changes says it's fake. "
I would expect for every piece of evidence which shows that it is not occurring I can find ten times as many backing anthropogenic climate change. But to be honest, I don't wish to get into an argument over this, you are obviously set in your belief that it is a load of rubbish, and any scientific evidence would not alter your thinking. "
Because big stories like this bring in big money. I suppose you belive the Earth will end in 2012 because the scientists say that too? What if the scientists said Earth doesn't exist and it's all an illusion and that you can wake up now? Would you believe it because the big bad scientists said so? What if a scientist said the Earth would end in 2000, or 1999, or th-oh wait, I'm pretty sure the super smart scientists DID say that...hmmmmm. "
lol most scientist say the 2012 stuff is BS only a small minority of scientists say its real, and the 2000 thing again was a speculation of several scientists and blown up by American journalism to scare people ( yet again ) for no real reason
and this is the only thing i'm going to post here cause this is more a topic to evoke people to react and not to reasonably talk about someones opinion
Least actual evidence to back up random opinions ever. Not to mention the lack of any forethought and any kind of understanding of the subject coupled with the word Scientists being thrown around like crazy.
Scientists are people. People have opinions and theories, on the whole "Scientists" try and back those up with EVIDENCE. Then present that information to other people.
Morons are people. People who go on forums and spout angry statements without any research or EVIDENCE.
Smartasses are People. People who read Morons posts and decide to comment on them.
" Well done guys! Least actual evidence to back up random opinions ever. Not to mention the lack of any forethought and any kind of understanding of the subject coupled with the word Scientists being thrown around like crazy. Scientists are people. People have opinions and theories, on the whole "Scientists" try and back those up with EVIDENCE. Then present that information to other people. Morons are people. People who go on forums and spout angry statements without any research or EVIDENCE. Smartasses are People. People who read Morons posts and decide to comment on them. :) "
" As we hear on the news, and see on the internet the world is going through this BS called "Global warming." Let me break in down for you, this is just warming, the earth goes through cycles. As temperatures rise, ice melts, causing water levels to rise, causing the flow of currents heating the earth to stop, causing the earth to freeze again, causing the water currents to move again, causing the Earth to warm again, thus causing another "crisis" in the next generation of humanity. Understand? "
I'm pretty sure you just broke most of the laws of physics.
I would just like to start by saying that I have not seen the raw data for all major studies conducted into global warming, nor do I have the knowledge or experience to give a highly informed interpretation of such data and I assume the same applies to most if not all other people here. So in that sense I can never say my opinion is 100% justified, although based on what I've read here so far the OP doesn't seem to care much for backing up his point with actual evidence. Based on what I do know however, the rapid rise of temperatures we have seen in recent years goes quite a way beyond the natural warming of the Earth and I believe that humans are to blame. Furthermore I would like to see the academic paper that says the world will end in 2012.
This debate always confuses me. What's the point in arguing against a theory which advocates reducing pollution? It's effect on the environment may be debatable, but it's hard to deny that pollution has a negative effect on humans. So why can't we all just agree that pollution (in it's many forms) is a problem, and not worry about so much about the details of who, or what it's a problem for? The global warming argument is, at it's base level, an arguement for the continuation of our species. For this exact reason, we should most certainly reduce our pollution. Even if you don't believe in the rising threat of global warming, I doubt many people would try to promote inhaling exhaust fumes as a healthy lifestyle.
This debate always confuses me. What's the point in arguing against a theory which advocates reducing pollution? It's effect on the environment may be debatable, but it's hard to deny that pollution has a negative effect on humans. So why can't we all just agree that pollution (in it's many forms) is a problem, and not worry about so much about the details of who, or what it's a problem for? The global warming argument is, at it's base level, an arguement for the continuation of our species. For this exact reason, we should most certainly reduce our pollution. Even if you don't believe in the rising threat of global warming, I doubt many people would try to promote inhaling exhaust fumes as a healthy lifestyle
A lot of people have been brainwashed by the billions of dollars invested by corporations with large pollution contributions. These companies have spent billions of dollars for this very purpose.
You realize its a hoax right? Human made green house gas just turns to rainbows when it saturates the atmosphere. You see, nature makes an exception to science for humans because humans have the right to rule.
"Understand? Yes Care? No. If it's gonna get really fucked up I'll just leave a Post-it Note for my grand-grand-grand children with the words "ooops, I fucked up. Sorry" on it "
Haha yep, I don't really care what happens in the next generation either, I'll be dead! "
you will care when u have kids some day "
No I really won't because this is all just one big hoax that is made to believe by Democrats and the Government. "
Log in to comment