Einherjar86
Active Member
Many meteorologist and climatologists consider above 85-90 to be "hot." They probably chose 90 as a way to demonstrate that more places are experiencing greater hot-ness.
Consensus =/= fact but- I don't really have any sort of ideological issue with the potentiality or likelihood that the earth is currently in a wamring pattern. My issue is with the religious hysteria surrounding the warming, its causes, and its dire consequences.
Well its causes are almost certainly partially influenced by humans, and the consequences will likely be significant for near-future generations.
I know that consensus doesn't equal fact, but that's a pretty pointless comment.
It probably is partially influenced, but the world has been hotter and has been much, much colder. We still attach too much significance to ourselves.
I'd rather call them effects than consequences, at least as far as warming goes. This isn't ozone-killing emissions or plastic in the oceans, which have pretty clear connections with significant consequences.
Well so is the constant trotting out of consensus as a justification by every hack in media.
It's not a competition with ancient epochs. So what if it's been hotter in the past? That's not the point. The point is that it's been warming since humans have started industrializing, and maybe we can do something to combat the consequences.
Saying it's been hotter in the far distant past has no practical bearing on the argument at hand.
I'm confused, because these things are connected to global warming...
No, it's really not.
Basically comedy-rape.“It felt like he was being thrust upon the audience without telling them,” one woman, who asked to remain anonymous, told Vulture.
There is no coherent, explicit argument at hand other than one bound together between naked primarily coastal self interest and a climate stasis cult.
Plastic in the water makes the earth warmer?
CFCs did contribute but have been widely curbed. The hole in the ozone has, by all accounts, very clear culprits and consequences. Carbon emissions much less so.
Why do you protect shit journalism so? I certainly don't do so for shit psychology (which is probably most psychological "science"), and I theoretically have a tribal interest in doing so.
Academia is so full of pussies
Argument for what? That the planet is warming? Because if so, then yes there is.
Very likely, yes.
I don't understand. Are you saying it's unclear whether increased carbon emissions are the result of industry? Because if so, I highly disagree. It's quite clear that human industry has contributed to increased emissions.
Is that what I'm doing?
"The earth is warming" is not the end of it though. There's a religion and associated cottage industry surrounding the meaning of the possible warming and all that is associated with the possibility that the earth is warming.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that microplastics in the ocean contribute to warming.
What I mean is that CFCs were a specific, artificial carbon form which had a specific effect on the ozone. Trying to determine the effect of human contributions to carbon on climate effects though involves a significant amount of caveats and confounds.
Here and often, yes. I'm not sure if it's in reaction to Trump's bashing of journalists or what.