154 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

TDE there's no point in arguing. If these people actually wanted the truth they'd seek it themselves.

 

I just wish they weren't capable of making any decisions. Stupid democracy.

[Thrash]

What...pfff...giving them money....

If you think that "scientists" are any different then say, Sam Walton, you are completely oblivious. Both exist for one reason. $$$$$. As much as you can say scientists are here to make my life better, so is Sam Walton and I'll tell you what, Sam Walton does a much better job, because he deals with reality and not some made up fearmonger shit (in order to get more $). At least he's honest about taking your money.

 

yea, I compared Sam Walton to scientists.. problem?

[Manoka]

Well, I don't think the scientists are to blame, but if we're talking, what do they stand to gain, it's just literally THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ENERGY department so, yes lots and lots of money if everyone switched over. Since at the moment solar and wind are less stable and at least twice as expensive as fossil fuels it wouldn't be bad to convince people to buy your product by other means than stability, ease of storage, and cost. Say, perhaps like the Mid Eval times, a hellfire and brimstone story, to scare people into buying your product for salvation; in this case quite literally about the earth burning.

 

The IPCC has a marketing team responsible for their publications who's very misleading. They'll release a publication, and then get their scientists to read it after words, and any discrepancies aren't changed in that publication since it was "edited" after it was released, and they only measure if the scientists  say they understood the content, not whether they agreed or if it was scientifically accurate.

 

 

There's over 300 CEO's at the IPCC in addition to scientists so, picking and choosing the scientific data and proclaiming X is accurate, true or not, attempting to use the weight of real scientists to make things look more real, is not beyond them.

Edited by Manoka, 07 July 2013 - 06:42 PM.

[Redezra]

Thrash, scientists get paid fuck all. I know scientists, they're mah people xP (I kid, but I made friends with enough aspergic physics majors in Astrophys to get invited to the Physics, Chem and Nanotech parties)

 

They aren't in it for the money any more than... like.... Picasso was. They don't get any of it, so why would they bother? I mean, grant money is essentially just enough to do the job, so they aren't playing it for that... and the people benefiting from carbon taxation/trading scheme setups and green projects are not scientists at all. They're entrepen... fuck that word, businessmen. Who don't science. They money. Lots of. etc.

 

Scientists are actually pissed off because they're all "Fuckin, Jesus people there's going to be a flood over all the lowlying coastal areas n people are going to die and... well shit you better do something before your place in malibu gets sunk!"

and people are all "No it's not, don't trust the scientists, they've got a secret agenda"

And the scientists are all "WHAT. AGENDA? Moar science?!"
And people are all "You're in it for the money"

 

And then the scientists are all " What money? There's money?! where the fuck is my money for this shit? I've just been stuck down in antarctica, freezing my balls off for six months, and I have memories and a melted snowball for it. Where is this fucking money?!".

 

And so on.

 

Scientists don't live in mansions on the waterfront. People with money do. Scientists are not people with money.

[Manoka]

TDE there's no point in arguing. If these people actually wanted the truth they'd seek it themselves.

 

I just wish they weren't capable of making any decisions. Stupid democracy.

 

But yet you're not able to provide a shred of evidence for your sciences. xP

[The Dark Empire]

TDE there's no point in arguing. If these people actually wanted the truth they'd seek it themselves.

 

I just wish they weren't capable of making any decisions. Stupid democracy.

 

But yet you're not able to provide a shred of evidence for your sciences. xP

Shut the fuck up I did not just waste all my time for this. Sorry for getting a little fiesty I don't mean it too seriously but it was necessary. I need a good GIF for this.

[Manoka]

 

TDE there's no point in arguing. If these people actually wanted the truth they'd seek it themselves.

 

I just wish they weren't capable of making any decisions. Stupid democracy.

 

But yet you're not able to provide a shred of evidence for your sciences. xP

 

Go fuck a razorblade you troll. That is all.

 

You realize this is not scientific evidence. xP

 

This is you just saying I should believe it; if you actually had some kind of legitimate evidence I'd be more likely to believe you.

[The Dark Empire]

 

Manoka did you miss my post entirely where I got the scientific evidence you asked me for then explained it even more. Go back a page and read it. Data about sea level rising at an increasing rates??? Ice core analysis? Positive feedback??? There were a lot of graphs and stuff I'm surprised you missed it. I even had some links for Thrash to read. Did ya really miss all that???

 

Tsk Tsk Manoka I read your posts it would be wise for you to show some common respect before you post.

 

Edited by The Dark Empire, 07 July 2013 - 06:59 PM.

[Redezra]

I don't give a shit. You know what you're doing. This argument is over.

[The Dark Empire]

I'm going to use these all the time now

[Manoka]

I'm talking to Red, bro.

 

But, graphs don't mean that it's happening. I can make a graph comparing Christians with the number of towels; as more towels exist, there are more Christians. This doesn't mean that there's a correlation or that it even matters.

 

 

The article you posted about the oceans rising suggested that thermal expansion would make it larger.

 

The maximum density of water occurs at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F), while it expands while under 0 degrees Celsius, or while frozen. While the surface temperature is often some 60 degrees, the water beneath the surface, just 100-200 meters below, makes up the most significant portion of water, and is known as the thermocline, or the area in which the temperature of the ocean stabilizes. In the ocean, this is on average between 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F).  This means that unless we have a sudden, extremely sharp change or increase in temperature, the ocean levels should actually decrease slightly from slightly increase heat, and not rise, if a significant change will occur at all, simply due to the vastness of the ocean and the somewhat irrelevant nature of atmospheric temperatures in relation. In other words, if the average ocean temperature is 32-37 degrees, and the temperature went up 2 degrees Celsius, the atmosphere presumably having the thermal energy to warm up the oceans, which contain substantially more mass than the atmosphere, on several orders of magnitude, the ocean levels should actually go down, since the density would increase as it approached 40 degrees, which it is substantially under on average; the freezing point of the ocean is about 28.4 degrees, with many parts of the bottom of the ocean nearing this, so it would take a massive spike in ocean temperature to start getting substantial thermal expansion.

 

Meaning that rising temperatures increasing the ocean's size is unlikely, assuming it did warm up slightly. Furthermore, it's pretty much impossible to measure ocean levels; they measured them by measuring the difference each year in beach levels, at 11 locations, but the earth's water is not completely flat; when other scientists began measuring the earth's oceans, at different beaches, they got all kinds of crazy variations, because the ocean is a constantly moving fluid. The only real way would be to measure it at several hundred locations with devices down to the bottom of the ocean, in open ocean areas where the ocean is more calm. At beaches, where there is the most turbulence (which is why tsunamis swell up so large, but are just little blips as actual waves through open ocean) out of almost any spot in the ocean, is a horrible place to take measurements, which subsequent studies have shown/

 

 

But since you're getting all angry I guess I'll stop.

Edited by Manoka, 07 July 2013 - 07:18 PM.

[Thrash]

lol

 

i love people getting riled up

 

manoka, you're just a hater.

[rotty]

Please
No more name calling.

[Redezra]

Manoka, I don't have to show you anything. Cause we did. A load of it. Buuuuut, you ignored it, and proved my point that you guys don't understand science.

[The Dark Empire]

Sorry Rotty I mainly posted those GIFs in a joking manner not meant to be taken too seriously. I apologize if I used name calling but I don't think I did.

 

I was interested in arguments against global warming so I've been doing some research. Most of the articles are not from well know sources and mainly toss about the term global cooling without really explaining how and why.

 

Manoka I read your post and didn't really understand that the oceans need a very large increase in heat but I believe there has been enough heat in the atmosphere that over time the water has been able to expand coupled with the increase in water once stored in the form of ice from the Artic and Greenland. Scientists have recorded water levels over many years all over the globe and after compiling research have showed that the sea level has indeed increased 4-8 inches. It has risen that's the bottom line.

[Thrash]

Manoka, I don't have to show you anything. Cause we did. A load of it. Buuuuut, you ignored it, and proved my point that you guys don't understand science.

 

Science? Science is basically "hmmm, I look around and I think this". I understand it perfectly.

[Redezra]

Manoka, I don't have to show you anything. Cause we did. A load of it. Buuuuut, you ignored it, and proved my point that you guys don't understand science.

 

Science? Science is basically "hmmm, I look around and I think this". I understand it perfectly.

 

My point exactly. That's not how it works.

[Thrash]

 

Manoka, I don't have to show you anything. Cause we did. A load of it. Buuuuut, you ignored it, and proved my point that you guys don't understand science.

 

Science? Science is basically "hmmm, I look around and I think this". I understand it perfectly.

 

My point exactly. That's not how it works.

Sure it is, Prove it otherwise. I can research stuff on the 'net and look outside and come up with a "scientific" opinion. The only difference is I didnt spend thousands of dollars to go to school and be a "scientist" and get paid thousands of dollars for being a "scientist".

[memoryproblems]

Jorost complaining about it being 88 and feeling like 102.

 

Meanwhile it actually was 102 here today. High 90s/Low 100s through the rest of the week.

Three weeks ago we had a week straight of 105+ weather. Last year we had 34 straight days of triple digit weather.

 

Quitchabitchin.

[Redezra]

 

 

Manoka, I don't have to show you anything. Cause we did. A load of it. Buuuuut, you ignored it, and proved my point that you guys don't understand science.

 

Science? Science is basically "hmmm, I look around and I think this". I understand it perfectly.

 

My point exactly. That's not how it works.

Sure it is, Prove it otherwise. I can research stuff on the 'net and look outside and come up with a "scientific" opinion. The only difference is I didnt spend thousands of dollars to go to school and be a "scientist" and get paid thousands of dollars for being a "scientist".

 

Your question is as insulting as it is telling of your incompetancy in this field. However, to try and help you out, here's the gist of the method:

 

 

Now imagine teams who are constantly competing to disprove everyone else's hypotheisis as well. Scientists fight tooth and nail to try and be the guy who "disproved einstien/newton/faraday/other". That's how they win prizes, that's how they make the big money. When they can't, we know it's a fact. That's when it becomes a theory.

 

Also, I want to see where you get your idea that scientists get paid so much. They don't, so to be blunt, you're wrong, paranoid, and anti-science by saying so.

 

Hell you're anti-science by what I've seen today. And why? Because you fear what you don't know. You see big scary numbers and predictions you can't and don't want to understand and assume it's a conspiracy. Well good for you, but there's no way I'm letting you teach kids anything ever, or make any decisions involving the lives of anyone I care about. Because as far as I know, you believe little red riding hood was a factual occurance out in kansas somewhere. You do not value evidence, or the scientific method, nor do you understand it. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

 

Just like a newspaper journalist trying to have an opinion on quantum physics, your opinion is noted, but invalid. As is yours Manoka, but yours is less of a "You don't understand" thing and more of a "You're intentionally trolling me and I know it" thing.

Edited by Redezra, 07 July 2013 - 09:38 PM.