Just so we're clear everyone on ISH is aware the earth is warming up - right?

[The Valley]

If hemp was never made illegal then the term "Global Warming" probably wouldn't exist.

Just saying.

[gigantes]

Because the two things have exactly zero to do with each other.

no no, they very much can have something to do with each other as i explained above.

it's similar to the idea that 'the antarctic is collecting ice, therefore the scientists must be wrong and the climate is a-okay.'

the reality is more like-- the antarctic is the most powerful ice creator on earth, therefore that's where you'd expect to see more ice as a result of global warming.

even so, the historic ice sheets in the antarctic are still breaking apart. it's mainly just new ice that's forming, which is a bad sign.

[DeuceWallaces]

God damnit you people.

[Heavincent]

Yes.

Do I care? No, mother nature gonna do what it does

[DeuceWallaces]

I get my science from racist ex-marines.

[DonD13]

If hemp was never made illegal then the term "Global Warming" probably wouldn't exist.

Just saying.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Ur dum

[Goofsta Knicca]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZZgRiKKGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwK0YL_b0

[bladefd]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Einstein

Too many uneducated fools in the world we live in. I remember the idiots on Fox news saying "we got a snow storm today, which means global warming is not real" last year with huge smiles and just disregarding science as voodoo. I get irritated with nonsense like that. When election comes around, I will make sure to not vote for idiots that brush aside scientists.

Oh and remember, from the Republican side, only 4 believe in climate change:
-Chris Christie,
-Jeb Bush (he does not believe fossil fuels or humans contribute to climate change at all),
-John Kasisch (he wants India/China to go first, which is idiotic considering US uses the most energy globally.. he also supports clean coal, which is hardly clean),
-Marco Rubio (he completely changed his tune once he began running for president to denying climate change.. assuming it was to get more money from conservatives that refuse to believe climate change)

Thats it! 4 candidates and 1 of them believes humans have nothing to do with it at all. Marco Rubio is now against climate change so it is hard to say what he truly believes. That only leaves Chris Christie and John Kasisch. Kasisch wants India/China to go first, which will NOT happen so I would eliminate him too.

[FKAri]

Yes.

Do I care? No, mother nature gonna do what it does

lol Mother nature doesnt give a fucc about humans

[DonD13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZZgRiKKGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwK0YL_b0

hot!!

[UK2K]

Because the two things have exactly zero to do with each other.

Now run and find some scientific explanation that fits the agenda, and then call it fact.


[QUOTE]Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the [B]fact that the world

[gigantes]

Now run and find some scientific explanation that fits the agenda, and then call it fact.

look at the date on that-- 2013. wasn't that around the time that IPCC emails got hacked and a bunch of cherry-picked info was released to the press in order to make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy in climate science?

yeah, IIRC it turns out that little smear campaign was pretty much all bullshit. a later, very comprehensive review conducted by the AP found that there was no real impropriety on the part of science, but much disingenuousness and agenda in terms of how the info was first released by the hackers.

so unless my memory is faulty, you just got served by the deniers, UK2K.

Here's something you will enjoy:

Has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases or anything man-made, and has everything to do with shit we have zero control over. Give you, eh, 15 years to come up with some excuse as to why the 'mini ice age' doesn't fit the narrative.

here's something you probably won't enjoy:

scientists are constantly forming, articulating and falsifying hypotheses and theories. they range from the wildly speculative to the generally accepted... such as the theory of gravity, for example.

now wait until your little ice age theory is peer-reviewed at the higher levels of science and then get back to everyone here when a consensus is found that the current theory of AGCC has been found to be flawed and broken. until then, the consensus is otherwise.

but feel free to scrape up whatever wild ideas from scientists A, B and C to try to instantly invalidate the consensus so as to avoid reality if you choose to.

good luck with that, matey.

[UK2K]

look at the date on that-- 2013. wasn't that around the time that IPCC emails got hacked and a bunch of cherry-picked info was released to the press in order to make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy in climate science?

yeah, IIRC it turns out that little smear campaign was pretty much all bullshit. a later, very comprehensive review conducted by the AP found that there was no real impropriety on the part of science, but much disingenuousness and agenda in terms of how the info was first released by the hackers.

so unless my memory is faulty, you just got served by the deniers, UK2K.



here's something you probably won't enjoy:

scientists are constantly forming, articulating and falsifying hypotheses and theories. they range from the wildly speculative to the generally accepted... such as the theory of gravity, for example.

now wait until your little ice age theory is peer-reviewed at the higher levels of science and then get back to everyone here when a consensus is found that the current theory of AGCC has been found to be flawed and broken. until then, the consensus is otherwise.

but feel free to scrape up whatever wild ideas from scientists A, B and C to try to instantly invalidate the consensus so as to avoid reality if you choose to.

good luck with that, matey.

So.. like religion.

You believe it until it doesn't match up to what you believe, then its wrong. Don't worry, they'll find some way to spin it and say CO2 caused the lunar eclipse. They'll find some evidence that says 'well it wasn't exactly right, but here's this, and this says what we meant to say'.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

In reality though, no matter what I say, you will find some piece of evidence that fits your agenda repeat it. If it validates what you believe, you will believe it. I know, I do the same thing every week for my DraftKings lineup.

[QUOTE]The [B]recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s

You can see some of the spikes associated with El Ni

[UK2K]

various possibilities.

a simple one is that warm air zones tend to gather greater amounts of humidity, and when that humidity moves in to a cool zone, there will naturally be more precipitation than normal.

from my understanding, that's just 'climate 101' stuff.

that's exactly why "global warming" is basically a strawman term. the scientists involved in the theory never meant that term to suggest that climate equals localised weather, but the public and the media prefer that inaccurate understanding in order to enable their ignorance and disingenuous attitudes.

the actual theory is that global climate is being destabilised, with the average global temp going up.

destabilisation is a bad thing, because civilisation is highly tuned to temperature and weather events being in predictable parameters in order for commerce and quality of life to go smoothly and loss of life to be minimised.

...

i'm pretty sure you aren't really interested the facts, but there you go in case i'm wrong.

Yes they did. They meant it when the Earth was warming. Now that it's not... Now its Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that name. The climate is always changing. Has been for millions of years.