LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate change is real

It's a real shame those idiotic Republicans created the EPA.
 
Scientific consensus on climate change:

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[9] In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[10] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11] A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions,[12] and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence,[13][14] attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.[15]
 
Politruk said:
Scientific consensus on climate change:

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[9] In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[10] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11] A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions,[12] and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence,[13][14] attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.[15]
Click to expand...
Not sure about all that. This documentary lays it out in a way anyone can understand. Worth the watch.
Cheers
 

Also:​

​

Which makes more sense?[edit]​

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/e/e2/Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png/600px-Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png

The denialist staircase[edit]​


[TR]
[TD]“”One of the reasons why the professional climate-change deniers have been so successful in penetrating the media is that the story that they have to tell is one that people want to hear.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—George Monbiot, Heat[86]:40[/TD]
[/TR]

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/e/ec/DenialistStaircase.png/400px-DenialistStaircase.png
In a nutshell…
Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken. The denialist tactics take the form of a staircase or ladder in so far as once one tactic becomes too obviously indefensible, the denialist will move onto the next step.[note 6]

  1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring,[note 7] pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional.
  2. Simply deny global warming is happening and maintain that no action is necessary[88] — so we don't have to change anything.
  3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
  4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to change anything.
  5. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to change anything, Ehrlich![89]
  6. Global warming is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.[90]
  7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to change anything.
  8. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority[note 8] — so we don't have to change anything.
  9. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but it's just human sin, so outside of worthless praying, we don't have to change anything.[91]
  10. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.[92]
  11. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to change anything.
  12. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.
  13. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now![note 9]
When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above — otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order (NWO) as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

Global warming deniers have raised a number of slightly more scientific arguments which are covered below.

Many of these claims are thrown into one big denialist soup. However, the problem is that many of them are also contradictory in nature.

For example, the common talking points about it being warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and low climate sensitivity (i.e. "climate is much more stable than that") contradict each other, because the existence of a Medieval Warm Period necessitates high climate sensitivity.

Another common inconsistency lies in asserting that "temperature records and proxies are notoriously inaccurate" (always to some undecidable degree beyond the statistical error scientists already factor in), while in the next breath, suddenly inventing presenting select 'reliable records' as evidence for whichever esoteric conclusion on global climate the individual denialist in question happens to be gunning for this time around.[93]
 
Politruk said:
Scientific consensus on climate change:

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[9] In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[10] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11] A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions,[12] and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence,[13][14] attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.[15]
Click to expand...
Mother Earth's cycles are loooong and sloooow, therefore, taking such a short-term period, such as the Industrial Revolution, out of millions of years, is basing your "science" on a mere nanosecond, relatively speaking...
IOW, it's a fools folly.
 
Boat1 said:
Mother Earth's cycles are loooong and sloooow, therefore, taking such a short-term period, such as the Industrial Revolution, out of millions of years, is basing your "science" on a mere nanosecond, relatively speaking...
IOW, it's a fools folly.
Click to expand...
You realize that we can measure the rapid decrease in ice levels and shit over the past century, right?
 
Rebel5soul said:
And no one is going to do a damn thing about, because it's virtually impossible.

Click to expand...
Only an idiot would cite Jordan Peterson as a source.


[TR]
[TD]…and I’m not taking down that tweet or acknowledging that my tweet violated the Twitter rules. Up yours, woke moralists! We'll see who cancels who.[sic] Twitter's a rat hole in the final analysis and I have probably contributed to that while trying to use understand and master that horrible toxic platform.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson, once more close to tears[3][/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Jordan Peterson making a clear, concise statement[4][/TD]
[/TR]

Jordan Bernt Peterson (1962–) is a Canadian quack and (perhaps soon-to-be failed) clinical psychologist, a retired[5] University of Toronto psychology professor, and Ultracrepidarian par excellence.[6] He has falsely claimed to be both an evolutionary biologist[note 1] and a neuroscientist[note 2] but he is neither. He has been regarded as a member of the informal Intellectual Dark Web, which has been described as a gateway into the alt-right.[10]

In 2022, Peterson sued the College of Psychologists of Ontario, which regulates clinical psychologists. The College had attempted to discipline Peterson for failing to speak in a professional manner befitting that of a clinical psychologist, which included not using hate speech in public. The College ordered Peterson to complete a "specified continuing education or remedial program" (SCERP) to maintain his membership in the College and his ability to practice clinical psychology. For this, Peterson had claimed that the College was violating his freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Peterson had also tried to have it both ways, claiming that psychological advice was professional speech but that the speech that the College found offensive and unprofessional was his private speech ("off duty"). A three-judge panel ruled unanimously in 2023 that the College had the right to regulate its profession and require him to take the SCERP to maintain his license. The panel ruled that Peterson still had freedom of expression but that if he wanted to maintain his license, the College had the right to require him to moderate his expression to comport with their regulations so as to maintain his license. The panel also ruled that there was no separation between he psychological advice and his offensive speech, that he was doing both under the argument from authority his time on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he introduced himself as a clinical psychologist. In essence, Peterson lost the case.[11]

Peterson has authored or coauthored more than 90 peer-reviewed articles on clinical psychology, social psychology, and personality theory.[note 3] However, Peterson is mostly known for his conservative views on religion, trans issues, and feminism, and for his incel- and MGTOW-heavy audience.[14] Although Peterson frequently makes morally questionable claims and engages in pseudoscience, his statements are notoriously incoherent, ambiguous, and jargon-laden, sometimes rising above vacuousness[14] to the level of deepity,[15] which allows him to handwave criticism as mere misrepresentations of his babbling bullshit.[14][note 4] This is ironic, as he criticises post-modernists for basically doing the same thing.

Peterson has gained something of a following for his how to live your life guidance, which mostly consists of obvious common sense, ideas recycled from the Stoics, and some fairly crummy advice. Despite promoting personal responsibility above all and telling others how to live well, he went on to abandon his very sick wife for a while to go to Russia to do a dangerous experimental medical procedure where he would get over his drug addiction by an induced coma,[16] thereby avoiding the discomfort of withdrawal and waking up with the problem that was much more easily solved with less personal work to do. Clearly, this must tick all the boxes in his principles of personal responsibility and "How To Live Your Life To The Fullest", because he hasn't seemed to lose that many fans/readers. This perhaps says something about his fans.
 
BrightShinyGirl said:
Propaganda for the gullible and easily led.
Click to expand...
Propaganda is easily refuted with facts. Which segment is bullshit and why?
I like the explanation about how the temp was historically measured in rural areas. Now the hoaxer’s measure at the airport on a blacktop runway.
 
DeluxAuto said:
RAPID DECREASE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS CENTURIES.

Did you eat paste instead of paying attention on school?
Click to expand...
Would you be referring to Government School.... the one that wants to tax the fuck out of me to "fix" an imaginary problem.... a problem they CAN'T PROVE is "man-made"... that school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

butters
the IPIE found “powerful actors” like governments, political parties and corporations are often behind misleading climate information
Replies
10
Views
192
Lazaran
L
P
Rubio eliminates office that oversees climate talks
Replies
15
Views
211
Politruk
P
P
Climate change is real. Just accept it.
4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
2K
Politruk
P
P
Climate change omitted from DNI's Annual Threat Assessment
Replies
5
Views
88
ll74
ll74
Rightguide
So Much For Climate Change In New Jersey
Replies
4
Views
126
Politruk
P
Back
Top