Latest posts
-
U
-
-
W
-
-
-
-
-
Forum Statistics
- Threads
- 27,636
- Posts
- 542,763
- Members
- 28,583
- Latest Member
- Joannafit
BackAtIt
MuscleHead
- Oct 3, 2016
- 2,185
- 668
Actually, aspergers is no longer on the books as an legit diagnosis from what I read on it ( wasn't real clear)...The condition she has is considered to be on the high end of the spectrum of Autism....Like, NC said, she is extremely bright, not retarded or learning disabled at all...
As far as being used as an political puppet, I have no clue...Again, from what i read up on her condition, it does cause a lot of them (autism victims) to be focused deeply on one subject...So, it could be very true she is legit in her endeavor, yet political vultures are using her too!...Again, I agree with NC on her parents shouldn't allow her to be involved to this degree...
.
As far as being used as an political puppet, I have no clue...Again, from what i read up on her condition, it does cause a lot of them (autism victims) to be focused deeply on one subject...So, it could be very true she is legit in her endeavor, yet political vultures are using her too!...Again, I agree with NC on her parents shouldn't allow her to be involved to this degree...
.
NavyChief
VIP Member
- Sep 26, 2013
- 706
- 592
I agree with u. I was being rude and crude for a reason though. I'm not advocating actually choking the kid with a dick, just making a point to shut her the fuck up.
And yes global warming is real. It's been real on and off for millions of yrs. Brazil used to be the planet's arctic circle and buried under ice, whereas the arctic was once a tropical paradise. It's a natually occuring cycle and if man thinks that they are really the cause then they are looking at the wrong science.
If we really want to save this planet then the only real answer is to leave it and spread out into the stars.
DungeonDweller
VIP Member
- Mar 21, 2017
- 1,534
- 1,335
Yeah, its been related to junk science. Even after they called it scientific consensus back in the Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" days many of the researchers referenced were like "woah, woah, woah, I didn't say this is man made". Its really just politics and control of money anymore. And public school teachers seem to be still teaching it, which is a problem.
matthewk04
VIP Member
- Jul 21, 2013
- 731
- 283
Im obviously in the wrong crowd to make this statement, but it’s exactly the opposite of what you said. Every reputable scientist believes IN man made climate change. The beauty of science is there isn’t “two sides”. You can’t take trillions of tons stored carbon dioxide and release it into any atmosphere and have there be no consequences. The warming of the earth being cyclical is technically true it it takes place over many millennia barring a catastrophic event like an asteroid, no empirical evidence exists of a warming (or oceanic PH level changes) taking place at this rapidity.
I don’t want to argue this point if you disagree you win. If you show me some data and studies/abstracts from reliable sources that disprove this I would love to read them. But short of that I concede the argument because I can’t argue facts.
matthewk04
VIP Member
- Jul 21, 2013
- 731
- 283
tommyguns2
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Dec 25, 2010
- 6,337
- 5,061
Science is not up for a vote. Scientists who reach consensus that gravity doesn't exist are still wrong.
Yes, climate changes. Does man have "some" effect on climate. Clearly, yes. But that effect is dwarfed by the natural fluctuations of the earth. The medieval warming period was caused by what? Carbon emissions? I don't think so.
Does methane from cow farts cause an increase of CO2? Yes, but cows have been farting for thousands of years. Global CO2 emissions have gone up roughly 30% over the past 20 years, and global temperatures have stayed relatively constant during that same time frame, while the expert models predicted a continued rise in temperatures. The models don't accurately predict the temperatures that we know over the past 20 years, but we're confident that these same models will accurately reflect temperature rises over the next 75 years? Sorry.
The science in this area has become highly politicized. climate scientists get $$$ for research grants that investigate the correct trends. This is about trying to heavily regulate the economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, as long as it isn't nuclear. After all, global warming isn't important enough to require increases in nuclear power. Rather, we need electric cars running on batteries that have heavy metals in them that will be in landfills in 15 years, solar panels that are pretty crappy in Seattle and Cleveland where the sun doesn't shine, and windmills that kills birds, and rich liberals don't want in their back yard that both only produce power periodically, thus requiring tons more sources and battery storage to hold the power for when it's not sunny or the wind isn't blowing.
In stark contrast, natural gas caused by evil fracking oil companies burns clean, and you can burn it 24 hours/day. It's the reason the US has actually met the reductions of the Kyoto agreement it didn't sign, while all the signatory countries that virtue signaled have not met their target reductions. Laughable. The clean energy movement is earnest, but not serious. And poor Greta is being used. After all, it's cruel to criticize a child. But it's even more cruel to use a child for your purposes.
Yes, climate changes. Does man have "some" effect on climate. Clearly, yes. But that effect is dwarfed by the natural fluctuations of the earth. The medieval warming period was caused by what? Carbon emissions? I don't think so.
Does methane from cow farts cause an increase of CO2? Yes, but cows have been farting for thousands of years. Global CO2 emissions have gone up roughly 30% over the past 20 years, and global temperatures have stayed relatively constant during that same time frame, while the expert models predicted a continued rise in temperatures. The models don't accurately predict the temperatures that we know over the past 20 years, but we're confident that these same models will accurately reflect temperature rises over the next 75 years? Sorry.
The science in this area has become highly politicized. climate scientists get $$$ for research grants that investigate the correct trends. This is about trying to heavily regulate the economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, as long as it isn't nuclear. After all, global warming isn't important enough to require increases in nuclear power. Rather, we need electric cars running on batteries that have heavy metals in them that will be in landfills in 15 years, solar panels that are pretty crappy in Seattle and Cleveland where the sun doesn't shine, and windmills that kills birds, and rich liberals don't want in their back yard that both only produce power periodically, thus requiring tons more sources and battery storage to hold the power for when it's not sunny or the wind isn't blowing.
In stark contrast, natural gas caused by evil fracking oil companies burns clean, and you can burn it 24 hours/day. It's the reason the US has actually met the reductions of the Kyoto agreement it didn't sign, while all the signatory countries that virtue signaled have not met their target reductions. Laughable. The clean energy movement is earnest, but not serious. And poor Greta is being used. After all, it's cruel to criticize a child. But it's even more cruel to use a child for your purposes.
BackAtIt
MuscleHead
- Oct 3, 2016
- 2,185
- 668
You are right...This planet has always had these cycles...However, man was not near as industrialized or even existed at these times...Last time I researched this subject, the pollutants that are being pumped daily into the atmosphere and have been for the last 10 decades or so, is causing an increased response to the warming of the planet...Acid rain is a fact and it has been around for quite while now...So, we know for sure the atmosphere is being polluted....Is it effecting the climate?...Not sure....Don't have enough expertise to know...But, common sense would dictate, that it could produce an negative result when it comes to the natural cycles of the planet...Just my take on it...
Moving into the stars?...From what I can tell, that is on the books...*LOL*
.
NavyChief
VIP Member
- Sep 26, 2013
- 706
- 592
https://www.popsci.com/fossilized-tropical-forests-found-in-arctic/
Svalbard, Norway is known for it's splendid Arctic scenery, frigid weather and polar bears. But it wasn't always like this. In a study published recently in Geology, researchers announce the discovery of a fossilized tropical forest in Svalbard.
Chris Berry and other researchers from Cardiff University found tropical tree stumps--the remains of an ancient tropical forest--during field work in the frigid latitudes.
380 million years ago, the continents were in vastly different places. The solid part of the Earth that we live on is broken into sections called tectonic plates. Over time, these plates move, pushed around by the Earth's mobile interior. Svalbard was near the equator 380 million years ago. (Watch this great animation to see where your home was back then.)
The fossilized tree stumps found by the researchers were lycopsids, early trees that are related to club moss.
Svalbard, Norway is known for it's splendid Arctic scenery, frigid weather and polar bears. But it wasn't always like this. In a study published recently in Geology, researchers announce the discovery of a fossilized tropical forest in Svalbard.
Chris Berry and other researchers from Cardiff University found tropical tree stumps--the remains of an ancient tropical forest--during field work in the frigid latitudes.
380 million years ago, the continents were in vastly different places. The solid part of the Earth that we live on is broken into sections called tectonic plates. Over time, these plates move, pushed around by the Earth's mobile interior. Svalbard was near the equator 380 million years ago. (Watch this great animation to see where your home was back then.)
The fossilized tree stumps found by the researchers were lycopsids, early trees that are related to club moss.
Who is viewing this thread?
There are currently 0 members watching this topic