How about we go with the majority consensus of climate scientists? Its real.

Not to mention to easily sensible record breaking hot/cold seasons.

records only exist in the timeframe ur taking into account. what if were to tell you that this evens out in acceptable average?
plz calm down.

Temperature can be measure so far back in time...

Since the pytagorian times the philosophers and experts in the world claimed that the world was rounded (in spherical shape), and it took till the 16th century for the people to realize that they have done the travel overseas around the world to prove this concept. Still there were some people that didnt belive in that until the first telescope was made and they realized that if the other stars in the universe was in spherical shape it must have the same rule to us.

Yeah, the Earth is such a nice spherical star ;)

))

In vulgar English there is no distinction between "Astronomical Object" and "Stars". If you do a literal translation from a latin term: Astros Planetarios (planetary stars?!) it translate directily to: Planetary Stars. The point is that "astro" doenst only "mean" star, we have two different terminilogies, one is Estrela(which is star) and another is Astro (which tecnicaly is: Astronomical Object, or "Celestial body").

You could just have said "sorry I meant planets" as used in the common tongue of middel earth.

If he could have, he would have.

Another metaphor concept: Imagine that you are inside of a woman's womb with a camera and you see the formation of a fetus, then you get along with it and you follow all the formation of the individual inside of the woman, then someday the liquid that held the baby is falling and you see later on a light shade and the baby suddenly disappears.

After that would you think that the baby is alive? or dead?

Think about it.

Before you ask: What does it have to do with what I said?
Simply: Just because you dont see it, it doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. Modernity can help you to handle to you of what you cant see with current technology.

Well that was a load of gibberish. Good job, I see you subscribe to the Time Cube school of philosophy.

So you still act like a creep, young padawan?

I would vomit inside the womb while spastically trying to pull the fetus into lighthearted oblivion.

But the same magnitude of fuss would be around if it wasn't. Those climate people have their lifetime chance of feeling significant! :~>

As opposed to BP and ExxonMobil, who have nothing to gain from the opposing view.

Completely unbiased. :P Yeah but global warming isn't a definitive fact. Maybe a climate change is, I wouldn't know, but climate does change from time to time. Then again I don't think the fear of global warming that is driving energy efficiency is a bad thing at all, even if there was no need to worry as of yet. At least as long as the energy saving and pollution decreasing is sensible - _-

but global warming isn't a definitive fact

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012

Source - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Yes, it is :) agree with the rest of your post.

I'm guessing in the end it all comes down to the definition of global warming :P So what if that's just ordinary oscillation and the time frame should be 500 years, it's not like statistics run for longer than ~100 years? Also there was a super-cold period in medieval age from what I remember and we're going crazy over one degree now. What if average temp was -5C back then. And how accurately did they measure something like that in 1880 anyway? Or even today, it's far from reading thermometers and then getting a mean read :o Just being critical towards everything here.

do you think the legions of scientists who have made climate science their life's work might have thought about some of these issues, which you have casually brought up in a post on a gaming forum?

Sure they have but I think my points are still valid, even if they are pure layman wondering :X

You're being sceptical but reasonable with your questions :)

There are ordinary oscillations you're right, iirc it's believed to be caused by patterns in solar activity. This is a good graph to refer to. The top two graphs are temperature against time, each worked out from ice cores in Antarctica. There are actually loads of ways of working out the temperature in the past. Trust me, it's accurate :) The Earth's atmosphere is warming, no question.

But notice the temperature changes happened very slowly, maybe 3degC in 10,000 years, or 0.0003degC per year. In my comment above I quoted 0.85degC in 132 years - 0.006degC per year.

That's 20 times faster!

At this rate, it will take about 450 years to warm by 3degC. So clearly, the heating we're seeing at the moment is very very far from natural :) There is also really no question of this either.

Maybe it doesn't sound like much, but the impacts are massive. Think ice caps melting already, and that's just the...er...tip of the iceberg.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict this qualitative impact if we experience 4degC warming.

...substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities..."

Tip of the iceberg hehe.

Yeah well going much further into the debate I'd have to start studying the subject thoroughly. But I know that there's debate about global warming in science community and some people who claim that actually there's no such thing ongoing or was it even that the opposite could be going on. Either way I'm curious how they measure the average temperature and what that actually is. Avg temp of air, soil, water, those combined? The instrumentation and metrology of this sure is interesting.. At least the older estimated average temperatures aren't very accurate so I'm not sure if you can draw much from them. You could never track something as accurately as you can today so I'm afraid you can't judge there wasn't similar pace of change hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Apparently how some of historical temp reconstruction are done (wikipedia):
"Proxy measurements can be used to reconstruct the temperature record before the historical period. Quantities such as tree ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, fossils, ice cores, borehole temperatures, and glacier length records are correlated with climatic fluctuations."

But yeah I'm not saying climate isn't getting warmer but we humans still have limited understanding of things no matter how much of an IPCC panelist and climate expert you are :P

Yeah well going much further into the debate I'd have to start studying the subject thoroughly. But I know that there's debate about global warming in science community

If you haven't studied the topic properly, HOW in gods name, do you come to this conclusion?

There is no fucking debate. There's idiots with a hobby, and there's scientists.

I know there are arguments going on even if I'm not the one arguing :x Those who criticize the general consensus are of course a minority but I wouldn't go as far as labeling them "idiots with a hobby" :P Maybe debate was a wrong word choice but surely climate change or global warming isn't black and white.

there are "debates" about the validity of evolution. there are "debates" about global warming. there are "debates" about homeopathy.

except none of them are scientific debates. or debates by legitimate scientists.

There's lots to debate about evolution on a scientific basis and by legitimate scientists. Global warming we've talked about and dunno about homeopathy.

There's lots to debate about evolution on a scientific basis and by legitimate scientists.

Wow. Evolution is one the best evidentially supported theories in science. There is no scientific debate on it.

It isn't scientific theory though, a theory yes. You can't prove something wrong that isn't proven right in the first place I guess, but if that theory was to release today, they'd know better and not release it. Some of the key assumptions of the theory are based on blind faith. Now it's impossible to draw it back, it being a fact in people's head, so they're sticking with it until they find a better scientific theory. "They" implies to scientific community. Also, you can't imagine science not having answer to these kinda questions so there's all less motivation to really debate about it until they find another explanation that's scientific. If you've studied evolution theory you know what I'm talking about.

Scientific research starts with a hypothesis, which can be proven right or wrong. The hypothesis needs not to be a result of an earlier study, but can be a newly formulated question.

The theory of evolution did not transpire from thin air, but is in itself an outcome of evolutionary process. In the middle ages people believed in alchemy, which was proven wrong by someone realizing insects weren't born to sealed jars. Mendel studied beans in his monastery to find out they shared hereditary traits. Lamarck theorized that the useful traits were passed on in animal kingdom, before Darwin.

Yeah, ok, interesting piece of history. Just to clarify though, I'm not saying all of evolution theory is false. But I have the feeling that most people debating about it have no real understanding of it (not saying you don't) and of everything that it includes.

Of course its a scientific theory. It is probably the most tested theory there is, with multiple lines of evidence confirming it from different fields. Where did you get these weird ideas?

Without going much deeper, you can categorize evolution to micro- and macro evolution. Macro evolution is the one that has flaws and isn't exactly scientific because doesn't fill the criteria of scientific method. Also there's no examples of it taking place. I'm not sure if you mix that with micro evolution when I said there's debate about evolution. Doubt there's anybody debating about micro evolution :o

This is misinformation spread by creationists. Are you religious?

In what way does it not meet the "criteria of scientific method"?

You can't observe or experiment it and there's no empirical evidence of it. Or can it still be scientific research? You can figure out a theory to explain it but as far as I know that theory is yet to come :o And I suppose even if you had one you'd have to validate it one way or another. With micro evolution you can take the birds to the island and see them change unlike with macro evolution.

"Observation" in science is not restricted to actually seeing it happen in real time, that's ridiculously constraining.

you can figure out a theory to explain it but as far as I know that theory is yet to come

That theory is evolution...

And I suppose even if you had one you'd have to validate it one way or another.

Again, seeing something happen directly in real time is not the only thing counted as evidence.

...there's no empirical evidence of it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Note that many of these evidences come from fields which came after evolution (like the molecular evidence) and they strongly corroborate it. So we have an overall explanatory theory, on which multiple lines of evidence from different fields converge.

Are you religous? I've only heard the things you are saying come from creationists.

The thing is - everybody seems to be an expert on everything because of internet and google these days. If you're interested in evolution theory and whether it's a foolproof theory I can recommend you some books. Yeah of course macro evolution is trying to explain it but regular laymen can't go in depth, there's relatively small but fundamental assumptions and simplifications done based on nothing but 'else it doesn't work'. Google is very far from sufficient when examining this so by any means if interested - read!

I'm not religious enough to believe bacteria turns into human if you're patient - and just because they taught you so.

I gave you a resource of referenced evidence for macro evolution, compiled by a biochemistry PhD, which you claimed didn't exist. Are you going to retract your statement that "there is no empirical evidence" for macro evolution?

there's relatively small but fundamental assumptions and simplifications done based on nothing but 'else it doesn't work'.

Name them.

Google is very far from sufficient when examining this so by any means if interested...

Google is a search engine, it is quite sufficient for finding references and published papers on evolution which is what I used it for.

... read!

I gave you an extensive list of research on the topic, what am I supposed to read? What's the problem exactly with what I linked? Do only your non-peer reviewed books count?

I can recommend you some books.

Gee, thanks. Go on then, what are your recommendations?

I'm not religious enough to believe bacteria turns into human if you're patient - and just because they taught you so.

So are you religious or not?

You can't just throw everything at my face and say 'reply' :/ I could go into detail and present my view of macro evolution but unfortunately I don't have the time for it atm. However the gist is: new organisms don't evolve. The existing ones develop but new ones don't pop out. Anyway you seem like a smart and reasonable guy so if you're frankly interested you might wanna take a look at:

http://www.amazon.com/Explore-Evolution-Argum...0947352511
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-L...0743296206

The book that I've read is unfortunately only in German or Finnish, so can't give you that. Haven't read those but they should be good. Also if I was you I'd search for evidence against evolution and then work it out from there :o And me being religious or not should be irrelevant.

The existing ones develop but new ones don't pop out.

Of course they don't pop out, if they did we'd call it the revolution of species or something like that. They evolve slowly over millions of years and go through a myriad of life forms to go from bacteria to human.

Yeah that's what the theory says I guess, doesn't really tell how, though. But the thing is, there's no alpha or beta versions of new organisms that the animal would carry around for 100 million years, something incomplete and essentially useless which would then evolve into a working and functional one. That useless, to-be-functional, organism which was created by random mutations would need to somehow be transmitted to descendants as well. And then keep evolving?

I don't know about evolving into a useful one but - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality .

And the reason there's no alpha/beta state is well, read this - http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg .

Is the last one a joke or does that really represent the level of knowledge you have about evolution?

Yes, it does represent my level of knowledge, but I don't know what you expect when you say you believe in micro but not macro evolution and talk about alpha/beta versions, yours doesn't seem even that basic tbh. Otherwise I don't think obi would be asking you if you're religious and he's way more cordial than me.

OK sorry about that then, thought you were fooling around. That's actually good that you pasted that because it presents the major misconception that micro evolution over time would result macro evolution. And I guess I shouldn't blame you because that's what some even so-called educated people assume. But it's just so different whether it's an existing organism evolving or entirely new organism forming. The EXISTING structures evolve or change slightly over time but how could that justify the assumption that also new organisms would form? It's so much more demanding for something NEW to be created because it needs new information in the DNA. Favorable mutations yeah, I'm not sure, theoretically it even might be possible, but if you've studied math... :P

Favorable mutations yeah, I'm not sure, theoretically it even might be possible, but if you've studied math... :P

If you've studied math... what? What does math say about favourable mutations?

Why can't small changes (micro evolution) lead to large changes (macro evolution) over a large enough time period? What mechanism makes this impossible?

Transitional forms clearly show new features being formed, like fish with basic characteristics of land animals.

Was hinting to probabilities.

I'm not sure about a mechanism making it impossible, but instead you should find the answer to: what mechanism makes this possible - and win a Nobel. Macro evolution needs new information which doesn't generate over time. Link to this fish with three out of four legs?

How about math makes this possible? If I keep adding .000000001 to 1 eventually I'll get to 2, is that not a significant enough change for you? And the three out of four legs... please tell me you're trolling us and you actually understand the basic concepts of evolution and that species don't evolve one limb at a time.

Just you'd have to multiply, instead of summing, e.g. 0.00000001^100 which equals 0 every time. Show me the fish with 4 partial legs then >:l

Why would you have to multiply other than to conform to your erroneous views?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/..._fish.html
http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/The-Mi...1028.shtml

edit: and way to math, 0.00001*100 doesn't equal 0 tho

An organism is always of the same species as it's parents. An entirely new species does not just spring from one day to another. It is always on a vast scale of time. That is why Nzr0's example with the red text fading into blue is a completely legitimate illustration of the concept. Do you not accept this?

The 'mechanism' was already proposed to you. Small changes in species accumulated over vast periods of time can account for considerable changes as result. Do you not accept this?

No that's false, that's what I think. That's the exact thing that's false. Exactly the assumption that isn't valid.

E: given that considerable changes are new organs and something new, not adaptation etc.

Organs or organisms?

The end result may be new organs/organisms. That is when compared with the initial specimen. It is not 'new' to its immediate predecessor. This is not an assumption. This is an observed fact.

Do you reject this as well?

It's new and it's not? You mean, let's say, new functionalities form bit by bit so that from the predecessor's point of view, it's not new?

Yes that is correct.

Children are always the same species as the parents. It is only after many, many, many generations that you will see the differences if you compare the descendant with the original specimen back from the beginning.

I disagree that new organs/organisms or change of kind would occur over time. Differences, yes, as adaptation and in existing structures. Bacteria into human, no, I don't think so.

Why not? If you agree that physical changes can occur and accumulate, why wouldn't that result in more radical changes given enough time?

You say that you disagree, but what makes you disagree?

Modifying existing and creating new - the mechanism isn't the same, there's a vast gap. The species can acquire minor changes over time via adaptation, natural selection and such mechanisms but it won't acquire new information required to make new working functionalities. Mutations need to happen for something new to be created and here's an example of the simplest organ. In one series of mutations: the most simple useful series of mutations in bacteria (and this is optimistic scenario) is to get a working bacteria motor (the simpliest organ imaginable, requires 28 mutations) and the probability for that is 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. (10^-140) The biggest estimate of the amount of bacteria ever lived on earth is 10^46, so the probability that the bacteria motor -inducing mutation occured ONCE over the 13,6 billion years universe has been here is 0,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (10-94) That's one reason I disagree, because I'm afraid that rounds to zero and it's only where we need to start off, the bacteria and to get them moving. No single working organ will develop in a single mutation so the species would have to carry the non-working liver for 100 million years only to find out it didn't mutate favorable, which is the likely scenario. And getting that far of course requires that the building instructions are passed out in DNA and how does that happen. The population and time frame (13,6 billion years) is way too limited for anything at all to come out of mutations. That's what I think.

You have a bunch of misunderstandings about evolution and it makes you think the wrong way about it. Evolution does not solely depend on mutations, but also merely upon a beneficial variation within a population.

Let's say that some arbitrary criteria dictates that taller animals within a species have a slight advantage in survival. The animals within the species are born in different heights, both tall as well as short, but the taller ones have ever the slightest advantage. Looking at this population the result will be a slightly longer average lifespan for the tall ones. They will survive just a bit longer and have more of a chance to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation.

With the criteria remaining the same, if we fast forward 1 million years, the species's average height will have risen considerably. This is the result of natural selection. It is not dependent on mutations, but merely the fact that the tallest ones get to pass on their genes in more circumstances than the smaller.

You talk about 'creating new'. Nothing is 'created' in evolution. Organisms evolve, conditioned by their surroundings. That is why it is patently absurd talking about populations of a species running around without a liver for millions of years and then suddenly a generation pops up with a liver. That is not how evolution works.

The offspring is almost entirely like it's parents, except for the tiny amount of difference that makes it just not quite the same.

By organism do you mean an organ? An animal is an organism.

Can you give a specific example in the animal kingdom where carrying such 'unsuccessful' trait is essential for the forming of the 'finished' product? If you look something like the eye, it started as nerve-endings which would sense changes in light cues and transformed into several low- and highend-products.

Also explain how proving the above contradicts with the theory of evolution. Unsuccessful mutations are prone to die out without passing their genes.

Organism is anything with life innit, so guess organs = organisms but yeah organ could've been better.

There's no such example is there and how could you provide one even if that has happened? I think you misunderstood that message of mine. OK, so in the next sentence you yourself provided an example...?

And then in the last sentence you debunked the whole message of yours by saying unsuccessful mutations would die out? Am I stupid or what :E

This is very common argument against evolution theory. Yet it is most usless. It was shown time and time again, that random mutations are the basis for evolution progress. Those with usless, costly or too radical mutations have less chance to produce posterity.
The most iconic one is debate about organs evolution. Countless creationists were very sure, that such a complex thing as eye could not be developed in little steps and that each and every step was benificial compared to previous one. And how do you think those debates finished? The theory of evolution of the eye was shown, and archeological and biological evidence were found, that eye as an organ was created by evolution at least couple dozen times independently each.

But the thing is, there's no alpha or beta versions of new organisms
actually existing and living creatures are full of such examples.

That useless, to-be-functional, organism which was created by random mutations
there is no such thing as "to-be-functional" features in evolution process. Each and every step of such process is the reaction to the current condition which was prolonged in time for so long that newly evolved adaptation mechanisms had chance to be fixed in DNA.

You can't just throw everything at my face and say 'reply'

I'm arguing your point about there being no evidence for macro evolution. You can choose not to read it, but then it would be dishonest of you to claim there is no evidence.

The authors of both your books are from the Discovery Institute, a creationist think-tank. The things you are saying are all ideas which originate from the Discovery Institute. That's why I am asking you if you are religious.

This thread started when you said:

lots to debate about evolution on a scientific basis and by legitimate scientists.

But you haven't shown that at all. Fringe books by members of a blatantly religious group don't count as legitimate scientific debate.

It's important to fully understand how the scientific community works now. First of all, the questions such as big bang, genesis of life and evolution of living organisms are the most significant questions science could ever answer. I'm sure we agree on this, because e.g. if evolution theory was patently debunked, everybody's worldview would collapse and totally change, which wouldn't happen with any other theory. The scientific community is expected the answer these big questions. And they've done it for roughly 100 years, which of course then is taught in schools as the truth. However, science doesn't aim to expose the truth when it comes to evolution. Science SUBJECTIVELY does research to support evolution theory. The have a full established goal which is to further prove and improve evolution theory based on theoretical biology, archaeological evidence, laboratory tests and whatnot.

Anyway they use massive amounts of money to support and further develop and research evolution theory. They still have plenty of unanswered questions and they know it, obviously they're not taught in school but there's nobody claims there isn't any. If any evolution researcher would find debunking evidence, you would never know about it. Why? There's many answers but this one is simple: if evolution theory was debunked today, it would be the most embarrassing thing to happen because they have nothing to replace it with. They'd have to say "we don't know" which wouldn't sound credible to public audience that has faith in science today. After 100 years of declaring this 'truth' they'd have to withdraw it back saying 'oops'. That withdrawal wouldn't happen in a thousand years no matter what evidence or gap in the theory they found. Another reason would be that the researcher that found the debunking evidence didn't want to find, simply put. Also, research needs funding. Evolution critical research doesn't get funding for obvious reasons, it's like undoing the previous research. Nobody cares about the flaws of evolution theory because nothing you can do for them except for research more and desperately try to explain them. Evolution critical scientists cannot publish anything that would jeopardize the university's reputation, and if they did, they'd get expelled and you would never know about the article. 99,9% of research going into evolution is subjective and it's just so difficult for evolution critics to function in the scientific community. Leave alone if they really tried to publish something endangering evolution theory or staining scientific community's credibility. So, don't wonder why there's no evolution critic from the apprentice of your favorite evolution professor or from anybody recognizable from the scientific community.

If you're willing to risk your worldview you'd have to dismiss the official take of scientific community I'm afraid. The flaws in macro evolution isn't hidden anywhere, they're facts and every professional evolution biologist knows them. Nobody that knows their business in that sector claims that evolution theory as a whole is foolproof and flawless. But those are 'hush hush'. Just think of the depth they've taught you this in school, it's ridiculous isn't it? They've showed you the pictures of monkeys, told you that's how it happened and you've accepted it, although it really goes so much deeper. But like I said, it's world changing so you need to be open minded and wise if you opt to go out looking for objective truth instead of subjective science research results. Even if you didn't give a damn about truth you might want to know what you believe in so you can justify your belief, if you can. I think there's only people who're scared to know better and those that haven't had the opportunity to think about it, nobody that wouldn't care.

Sorry if there's mistakes, didn't have the time to proof read it.

...and nowhere did you name or give an example of any of these supposed problems with evolution.

Your whole rant is an un-falsifiable conspiracy theory so there's nothing I can really respond with.

I don't know where this massive distrust with science stems from. Science did nothing but good to these people, but somehow they feel the need to bash it left and right.

It's like people in the middle ages on a witchhunt.
Or maybe it's just the internet.

I always found it kind of fascinating how people think. Like supposing this big conspiracy between scientists - it's not an argument for anything, just an excuse for why the science goes against them.

Was just a thorough explanation to obi to why there's no literature about the subject from certain sources.

And what about your creationist sources?

I haven't gone into deep detail because
a) It takes so much time and I'm very busy atm
b) You would need to google how to reply to me and I don't wanna discuss with google. That's because if I wanna thoroughly point out the flaws I'd have to go quite deep into cell biology and thinks like that. Evolution really isn't all that simple as you might first think IF we go into detail. But I'd turn the question around, rather than me proving that something can't be true, you would prove that something can be true (in this case, macro evolution).

Again if you're interested you might wanna google if you can find information about the mechanism that enables macro evolution. I would be interested about what you can find. It seriously is a big, big leap over a series of unanswered questions, from micro evolution to macro. Basically it's very simple assumption yet flawed: small changes happen so add more time and big things happen. The 'leap' or 'shortcut' from micro evolution to macro evolution is made so that the theory would work. Pick the best professional on the field and I, being virtually a layman myself, could silent him if he claimed macro evolution theory is flawless (which he won't if he's any good), just by asking almost the same questions as I've here. There's no observable evidence and no theoretical explanation provided.

here we go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

one quote from there
The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.[5]

and by now there are many many more of such unscrambled examples of microevolution work on a big time scale which is essentially macroevolution

And just to add something: I don't know the definition of conspiracy theory but that's just how it works if somebody wanted to be critical about evolution... That's just how it goes, no conspiracy or anything, fairly simple thinking and makes sense doesn't it? This is nothing invented by me, I've heard this from renowned scientists themselves and it sounds obvious to me.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q5/cdp40/wild_banana.jpg

A few misconceptions need to be addressed maza.

Evolution is observable fact.
Evolution is by non-random selection. Not by random mutation alone.
Evolution happens within populations. Not by individuals within populations.
Evolution happens over vast periods of time.

This whole last post unfortunately exposes you as a conspirationist and it groups you with the people sporting tin foil hats and advocating alien conspiracies.

There is no 'scientific community' which has anything invested which they are compelled to conspire in order to conserve. Science deals with evidence and you do not lead the evidence, you let the evidence lead you. It is not about embarrassment and inconvenience. You would actually win the fucking Nobel prize for disproving the Theory of Evolution, receive fame and ensure your name in the history books. Don't you think hordes of people entering the field of biology would stumble head first towards that if it was merely a matter of spiting 'embarrassment'?

Science does not have any agenda except discovering how things work. The religious have however proven to have an agenda of slandering science in order to protect the feeble dogma of a book conceived in the bronze age by illiterate ignorants from the desserts of the Middle East.

So many more things I could point out...

There is debate on how exactly evolution occurred/occurring as it is not a completed theory yet. And then there is the people in denial of it (we'll call that uneducated debate).

Not saying evolution isn't real, I believe (know) it happened. But the whole picture of how we understand it isn't a complete picture yet. That might be the "scientific debate" he is referring to.

Look at the graph again. There are two separate measurements that give almost EXACTLY the same output coincidence? All of the different methods scientists can use to work out past temperatures are in agreement - this is called science, they're not guessing.

Also, look how there are patterns in the graph. Seriously, this is really accurate. Nobody is making shit up...

Of course they are the same. They couldn't call it science otherwise hehe... :P But can't read changes over 100 years from that graph anyway, just that the temperature isn't constant long period of time. The span that humankind will last is such a short period of time as well so it's not a matter of tens of thousands of years I think. It isn't made up for sure, but it's far from really accurate, you just can't measure something like that _accurate_ :o

"So clearly, the heating we're seeing at the moment is very very far from natural"

Cause we know everything about nature and how the climate is affected by everything, so clearly. I'm not saying it's not caused by humans, but just because it's not like before, doesn't mean it's not natural.

The climate has been in a stable pattern for the past few millenia, then humans come along, and atmospheric CO2 concentration starts to increase rapidly right about the same time as the industrial revolution...

...and then the temperature starts to ride, right about the same time as the CO2 increase....hmm must be a coincidence...

Majority doesnt equals truth

Didn't say it did. But it's perfectly reasonable to provisionally accept the consensus of experts, which is that climate change is real.

experts read the same books, etc, obv they gonna agree, again that doesnt means its truth. "Experts" some hundereds of years ago were sure the earth was the center of the solar system.

You are comparing modern science with people who believed in heliocentrism? lol. Your argument is basically invincible because no matter what I say you can claim so kind of conspiracy amoung scientists. I think you have already made up your mind without having read or underrstood what science says on the matter.

Science is a constant rewriting and discarding of mistakes and errors, far from the perfect idealization most people have of it.

It is perfect in the sense that it updates whatever is found to be faulty when what is correct is found.

Nop, youre deeply wrong. Too much economic interests and big douchy egos are in play. Or you really believe nearly 100 years after burning fuels is still the best way to power our cars?

That's not science you're talking about. I'm talking about knowledge.

Dont understand what you wanted to say there, but nevermind, we just think different, no need to try changing our minds.

So wtf do economic interests have to do with science? Did scientists stop all energy research once we found out about petrol? Do scientists claim it's the best way to power our civilization? Do you ever stop to read what you wrote before you click post? Don't bother, every one was rhetorical.

So wtf do economic interests have to do with science?

Stopped reading after that.

The science of climate isn't *that* hard. There are four basic forces.

1. Radiation from the sun
2. Albeido - reflection from the surfaces back to space
3. Green house gases (accelerating fo sure)
4. Local shit like volcanoes

1,2,4 of these forces aren't strong enough to produce as great of a change are experiencing, where as greenhouse gases are. Without greenhouse effect the average temperature of earth would be -18 celsius (now +15), so that shit is not all bad. Only other viable option in our current understanding is some kind of outside force, but at the moment accelerating amount of co2 is the most plausible explanation.

Of course forces from our solar system and galaxy (especially the Sun and our relative position to it) could have dramatic effect on our climate and weather.

Just FYI, all the planets in our galaxy are experiencing what could be defined as weather extremes in their respective relative cases.

Leave it to the clueless to turn scientific evidence (and common sense) into political conspiracy.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

C O N S P I R I T A R D

Would be good if it gets warmer in Russia

What would happen withp polar bears? ; _ ;

idc, Russia is not located at polar cap

Climate is changing, but not due to human intervention. The earth, solar system and galaxy has cycles. We are going into a (mini?) ice age. Could happen a pole shift too. Every half great year (a great year being aprox 24000 years, a full run of the precision of the equinoxes on every zodiac sign) brings massive earth changes, last time it happened mamooths were flash frozen with food on their stomach that didnt decompose. Lets call it the reset button of nature. We are leaving piscies (thats why "Jesus" is all about fish") and entering Aquarius, the water bearer. Enjoy your time guys, we will probably have massive changes on our lifetimes.

The Sphinx has erosion compatible with rain, last time it rained on that zone was 12.000 years ago. Egyptians didnt build the great piramids. There are cities under water, for example near Japan. Earth and human history is much more interesting than what you were taught on indoctrination camps, sorry i mean school. Advanced civilizations have existed on earth, and perished, survivors gone back to caverns on mountains, where air is more pure, because when this things happen massive ammount of dead stuff and shit expeled by earth makes the air unbreathable, caverns because rock protect you from massive amounts of radiation coming from the sun and galaxy, while the magnetic protection of the earth fails.

Guys interested in this things should read a good book, like "Fingerprints of the Gods".

Climate is changing, but not due to human intervention. The earth, solar system and galaxy has cycles. We are going into a (mini?) ice age.

1. lol
2. sources, please

2. sources, please

You must listen to the stars with your heart and the truth will be revealed.

The earth already had many warming and cold ages without human intervention. Youre just as delusional as most humans believing youre more important and have more power than the all powerful mother nature. Keep loling tho, common reaction to people that is unable to face truth.

It's also a common reaction to idiots.

O how smart, for me idiots are those that repeat the same nonsense, also called sheeps. beeee beeeeee

Such as astrologers?

I know the earth has been through cycles. See my post. Just because the climate existed before humans doesn't mean that humans are unable to effect the climate. I'll explain some basics for you and other so called "skeptics" i.e. people who don't bother with science. Don't worry, I'll keep the terminology simple :)

Sunlight hits the earth. Normally it would bounce back, but "greenhouse gases" absorb a lot of it and then emit it out randomly. This means the atmosphere stays warm!

In the past (with the exception of, say, volcanic eruptions which emit sulfur and carbon dioxide - think deccan traps) the flows of carbon have been pretty balanced in and out of the atmosphere. Check this out if you don't get me. Plants respire, some CO2 goes into the atmosphere, but then they photosynthesise and some comes back out. HARMONY <3

Now, humans are changing this. We are adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we're also cutting down trees which means less is removed from the atmosphere too D:

This means more greenhouse gases that absorb the sun's energy are in the atmosphere!! Guess what that means?

first post that shows a basic understanding of the topic. really good job! it´s really not that complicated. people are just too lazy and comfortable crying about the complexity of the world instead of educating themselves.

Thanks :) It's pointless to discuss this subject without backing it up with at least some science.

Just waiting for someone to claim that the observed global warming is the result of solar activity :D

Dude, Co2 isnt even the main problem, methane is much much worse, and its starting to leak from the permafrost. Youre searching the wrong culprit. Im out of this thread tho, i always ends angry and feel like talking to a wall. Happy Co2sing

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century

You're honestly going to discard the finding of the IPCC without any science, research, facts, figures etc?

No, he's going to discard those findings because of a random conspiratard site with "you can't explain that" "mysteries". It's the reasoning of idiots, I don't know X therefore Y is clearly such and such.

your(and most eco terrorist as you) logic goes along the way:

the amount of internet porn is rising, so is number of suicides. watching porn results in suicide.


do i really have to say its total bs?

haha :p

Man, I just explained the reason humans chucking CO2 into the atmosphere leads to global warming. Did you even try to follow it?

and i explained why this reasoning is bad.

basiclly judging on such long time occurance as climate and its changes using last 30 years is silly, and its quite possibly all reports about it are wrong.

so yes, i did follow. did you? or is it better to live in your eco bubble?

This is how it works in the scientific, logical world.

1. An effect is observed
2. Possible causes are identified
3. If a plausible link between a cause and effect can be established, the theory is not disproved

If you can disprove the link I offered in #49, then I will agree with you that climate change is not as a result of human activity.

What do you think is causing global warming? Or do you deny it?

so you agree internet porn is causing suicides, and macdonalds is the reason of rising number of people(see #127).

global warming is real, just not releted to human activity. just another phase in earths cycle.

I cannot identify a reasonable link between the rising amount of internet porn and suicides, therefore I have no reason to assume the two are connected.

However, there is a very clear link between carbon dioxide and temperature:

1. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is what holds heat in the atmosphere
2. Humans are adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere
3. Therefore more heat is held in the atmosphere

porn causes changes in human mind - > people commit suicide. cant get more direct.

Everyone needs a religion Hitsu. It's human nature. Some choose certain scientific causes and usually those people have been trained to hate the word religion and their ego doesn't allow them to understand that they too are religious in a different way. Usually out of fear. Thanks Al Gore.

Worth noting that CO2 levels have been much higher and life flourished on this planet. And there have also been many major catastrophes and life still carried on, even flourished.

Would you please define your usage of 'religious' and 'religion'?
I am sensing an equivocation fallacy.

Life might have survived said catastrophes, but flourished is a generous word and it surely was not as life forms that humans can hope to imitate. If your only concern is that life in general should survive, I guess you can be founded in not being particularly concerned yet.

Anytime a human believes something blindly it's a religious belief. That goes for pretty much everyone in this thread arguing for AGW, as I feel more than confident you simply have listened to talking heads your whole life, probably haven't read much of anything on the subject and probably couldn't understand what you read even if you had the time to read it.

I'm sorry, but a meteor crashing into earth on the catastrophe scale (a large one) or a super volcano erupting > what's theorized about global warming which is probably all wrong anyway.

I'd say the chances are life would thrive with more CO2. Plants would be larger, we'd all benefit to some degree. I only grow plants for a living though and deliberately supplement with CO2 (higher levels than are in the atmosphere by a lot)...

Things would change, but it wouldn't be human race ending or even close to it.

Meanwhile all the AGW freaks want to push heavily authoritarian collectivist bullshit down everyones throat which is, as per usual, going to make a handful of people mega rich and the rest of us poorer. Because that's what the world needs is the rich to be richer and more in control and us to be weaker and poorer.

If the belief in global warming is based on scientific predictions which is based on empirical evidence, how is it then a 'blind' belief?

It does not matter if its a mega volcano, meteor runaway greenhouse effects that barrens the world. Either is a result that the human race would like to avoid. The question is about how to avoid it, if possible.

You say it probably won't happen, and I then start to wonder if there is something in particular that makes you think so,

Global warming, increased CO2, melted icecaps and a destroyed ozone layer are not newly invented concepts. It has happened before back at the Permian–Triassic extinction event. 98% of marine species dying off does not really correspond with your claim of flourishing life, even though CO2 levels at that time was though the roof.

You invoke conspiracy claims by stating that it is all a hoax invented to somehow earn money off the sheepish masses. Yet more than 100 years ago Nobel prize awarded Svante Arrhenius calculated the effects of doubling CO2 amounts in the atmosphere should result in melted arctic icecaps.

Maybe your conspiracy goes back more than a decade? Are you sporting a tin foil hat to protect your mind against the govenment as well?

It's clearly junk science that ignores many large variables. Kind of like economics is largely junk science. You don't read it or understand but you trust it implicitly. I don't see how that can't be described as anything but religious.

Most science is in fact junk actually. Statistics are easily manipulated and they often are, especially since most people don't really understand statistics very well in the first place.

And you scream conspiracy but the policies that are suggested will do exactly what I said. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

If you gave a shit about this you'd be pushing hard for hemp to be legalized as it's quite capable of providing for all our energy needs on its own. But I don't see the global warming collectivists doing that. Mostly because they have no clue.

If the belief in global warming is based on scientific predictions which is based on empirical evidence, how is it then a 'blind' belief?

stating that increase of greenhouse gasses in atmosphere by 0,1% is cause of global warming is not empirical evidence, because its in between error of measurment.

atm shit looks like: rising temperature, rising amont of greenhouse gasses. HEY they are linked, so rising temperature is totally our fault.

IF human population keeps releasing more and more gasses into the atmosphere, why doesnt the process of global warming speed up drasticlly?

Zeitgeist, Fingerprints of the Gods and ask the right people about Cosmology, Astrology, Geologists and Engineers (how can you asset that a pydamid was made if you have no knowledge on engineering?)

Here is your source, enjoy.

Looks like humans have a pretty periodic way to change climate.

Lmao.

Fucking sheeps.

You provided a source for the one thing in your post that wasn't bullshit xD

I love it when climate change deniers use data they think supports their point but in reality does not at all.

I'm guessing you must have missed the following indication below the two graphs: "Year before present (present = 1950)" (emphasis mine). Ice core data is indeed extremely useful to examine past CO² levels over the last hundred thousand years, and it is used by scientists worldwide to put current levels into perspective, but we've been measuring these current CO² levels very accurately for several decades through other, more precise, means (see for example the measurements done since 1958 by the Mauna Loa Observatory).

So, how does the data you presented actually look when compared to current levels? Here you go:



"Oops". Note that the ice core data comes from Luthi et al., 2008, whose study went further back (800.000 years) than your source, to help put it in perspective even better.

Now, to address your broader point, how do we know that natural factors do not suffice to account for the temperature increases (and the changes observed in other indicators, such as reductions in snow and ice, and a rise in global mean sea level) we've been observing since the industrial revolution? In addition to the scientific research you'll find extensively detailed in the first volume of the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a relatively easy-to-understand way to look at the issue is to observe what only taking into account natural factors tells us about what our indicators should look like, and compare it with what our indicators actually look like. You then proceed by observing what taking into account both natural and human factors tells us about what our indicators should look like and compare it again with what our indicators actually look like.

So, let's see what these comparisons show with regards to temperature increases (taken from p. 44 of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013), Frequently Asked Questions section, available here):


The same comparisons on ocean temperature changes (taken from p. 18 of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013), Summary for Policymakers section, available here):


Yet another look at these comparisons (taken from the summary poster of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013) and adapted from p. 66 of the report, Technical Summary section, available here):


There is simply no excuse to remain an anthropogenic climate change denier today. You don't even have to read the IPCC's latest full report - they provide easy-to-understand FAQs and summaries (those are for the 2013 first volume, but they're also available for the two volumes published this year) complete with references to the full analysis for every point you would like to investigate further. You can also look at the countless studies undertaken outside of the IPCC which point to the same results. The scientific consensus on the topic is clear: human activity largely contributes to climate change.

AND STAY DOWN, FUCKER!!!

The gSTRUCTOR counter: "Yeah but people thought the sun went around the earth, so I don't have to listen to what science says if I don't like it"

Then why there isnt a corresponding increase in temperature? Correlation doesnt means causation.

Again, co2 isnt the main enemy, methane is much worse as a greenhouse gas.

"Then why there isnt a corresponding increase in temperature?"

The temperature increases since the industrial revolution are well documented.

From p. 38 of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013), "Technical Summary" section, available here:


I also refer you to the "FAQ 2.1 | How Do We Know the World Has Warmed?" section of the "Frequently Asked Questions" chapter of the same first volume of the Fifth Assessment Report, available here (pp. 7-8).

"Correlation doesnt means causation."

There is no need to resort to the idea that correlation equals causation to link increases in concentrations of CO² (and other greenhouse gases) to increases in temperatures, because the actual detail of how the causation operates is known to us and has been extensively studied. To put it concisely, CO² and other greenhouse gases "affect the absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphere and at the Earth’s surface" (IPCC). You're for example probably familiar with the greenhouse effect, so I'm not sure why this would come as a surprise to you. If you want to look at research analyzing the spectrum of greenhouse radiation to see how various gases contribute to the radiation in order to convince yourself further, you can for example read W. F. Evans, "Observations of Climate Radiative Forcing from Ground and Space," in Advances in Imaging, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optical Society of America, 2009). I'd invite you again to consult the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, which extensively touches upon the topic, but I suppose I'm repeating myself at this point.

"Again, co2 isnt the main enemy, methane is much worse as a greenhouse gas."

Methane indeed has a higher Global Warming Potential and Global Temperature Potential than CO² over time horizons of 20 years and 100 years. This is detailed quite precisely in - you guessed it! - the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report - see in particular p. 714 of the first volume of the report, in the "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing" chapter, available here. However, despite having higher GWP and GTP values than CO², methane has since the industrial revolution contributed considerably less than CO² (and is still contributing considerably less) to climate change because it is emitted (and present) in much smaller quantities than CO².

Indeed, see the following graphs detailing the radiative forcings of the various greenhouse gases (methane is CH4). You will see that CO² is clearly on top.

From p. 54 of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013), "Technical Summary" section, available here - also, see p. 53 for the definition of "radiative forcing", which "is a measure of the net change in the energy balance of the Earth system in response to some external perturbation, with positive RF leading to a warming and negative RF to a cooling.":

• Graph

Here's a look at the evolution of the gases' contribution to radiative forcing over time (don't get fooled by the scale on the Y-axis of the second graph), from p. 677 of the first volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2013), "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing" section, available here.

• Graph

Since I have a feeling that you won't check the report itself, even though it is again freely available online here (the other volumes can also be found here), I have taken the liberty of uploading scans from pages 676 and 677, which deal with CO² and methane's radiative forcings. You'll find them here: p. 676 - p. 677. CO² is clearly by far the primary driver, although it is not the only one.

But these 'scientists' only have big ego and money on mind.

And they're working for big capital.

and getting bitches. They're just in it for the fame dude

it is ridiculous when a "scientist" discover another little tiny structure of "what the universe does" and he gets an award :). Now they built(or are building) an accelerator that takes like what, billions of dollars to make it.. and it takes what? 4 6 countries to make it?

Money influences scientists indirectly, as in big bussines only finances projects that doesnt put their money making capabilities on risk, while trying to discredit research that does the opposite, you have to be naive to not realize this, its part of the human nature, at least of non enlightened human beings.

Ego surely influences them directly. There are exceptions of course, people of truly good intentions that doesnt care about ego or money. But thats where peer review can fuck them anyway.

Thanks.

How do you measure CO2 concentration from long time ago?

Ice-core records. See here.

yeah, keep using data from people who got job because global warming was invented. thats totally serious.

btw. did you know that during second GMRM its got revealed that earths rising human population is a result of macdonalds opening? source here: [link=source]https://31.media.tumblr.com/550d6fee3c18ec62352e1dc6c5c569b0/tumblr_inline_nbwjuiXxOU1reygjb.gif[/link]

Yeah and when we build something the last person we should talk to is an engineer cause he only got a job because engineering exists.

inbred

Plato was one of a kind, not only he knew about Atlantis, but he knew that geometry is the master science, the platonic solids is what everything in this reality is made of.

He also wrote fiction.

Maybe.

No one knows, 'cause no one is actually able to know.

Some people write about fiction but they encode things inside of the text in order to you to figure out that he meant another thing. Isnt it a poetry skill?

Don't know what that has to do with Platons Atlantis story?
When I hear people talking about the possible existance of Atlantis, I try to imagine intelligent lifeforms visiting earth 3000 years from now trying to find Mount Doom because they found the Tolkien books.

It's retarded.

Take Atlantis as a general therm, there has been many advanced civilizations on this earth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...-city.html

https://www.google.com.uy/images?&q=pyramids+bosnia

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/11outofplaceartifacts.php

Again life is much more interesting than most people realizes, or better said is able to face. They cant face it, theyre too much close minded and afraid of realizing that most of what they were thought is wrong.

How are geometric formations underwater an 'advanced civilization', mate?

1. Controversial 300-Million-Year-Old Screw Of Unknown Origin

Who left this baffling object on the Earth? Did this alien artifact belong to an unknown ancient civilization far more advanced than us?

On October 7, 1996, a group of researchers were participating in an expedition MAI-Kosmopoisk trying to find the fragments of a celestial body that fell in the Kaluga region, in western Russia.

Was the screw left by ancient aliens visiting Earth?

Obviously, someone was walking the Earth millions of years ago, but these beings were not humans.


...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

rofl, that last link he posted has to be the dumbest shit I've read in a while. Meanwhile there are dozens of screw-shaped marine fossils embedded in the limestone at my parent's house, not to mention the ones in my fossil collection. They're called crinoids or "indian beads".

Having done freelance web design myself and knowing some of the easy ways to make money online, the adverts and affiliate-scheme links on that website make it painfully obvious that this is just another case of some dude making a few dollars at the expense of ignorant gullible conspiratards world-wide.

Just think how many people out there believe that shit (or scarier still, need to believe that shit) without questioning it, you can get a rough idea of how much money that guy is making, assuming of course that he's done the basics of self-promotion, such as plastering his website address over every single image for example.

People who happily swallow down all that nonsense without question have to be some of the most narrow-minded, self-important condescending pretentious twats to ever grace the face of the earth, thinking they are oh-so-enlightened as a result, while in many cases they helplessly believe multiple conspiracy theories about the same subject, oblivious to the fact that they actually contradict eachother. In the end, it's nothing more than a religion.

The "That Science Cannot Explain" part of the article's header made me cringe so hard my collarbones snapped and I accidentally kissed my own cock. The avalanche of "baffling"s "extraordinary"s and "remarkables" afterwards didn't help either. Jesus christ what a load of tripe.

But the best part about that website is it's slogan, Thought-provoking news for open-minded people who can think "outside the box"!

LUL!

...made me cringe so hard my collarbones snapped and I accidentally kissed my own cock

a [+] for a giggle :D

Your looking too much into it, the explanations they give isnt the point, thats theory. The fact is, and thats why i quickly searched a site with those out of place objects, advanced relic stuff from hundred of thousands and millions of years exist in the earth. Thats a fact dude. In my opinion they were made by past advanced human civilizations, not aliens.

I can see the skepticals becoming to greed.

UFOTV :D

You're trying to brainwash yourself?

Have you even tried the first 5 minutes? Guess who is presenting this video, it has no relation to "UFO". Trust me!

I did watch about 10 minutes actually :) It seems fine but I think they're suggesting humans have been around for millions of years before scientists think they were, which makes me a bit uneasy.

But I had to comment on the channel name ;)

The channel name sucks :) I know! :(.

Today I only absorb of what is relevant from the information that I gather to. Of course, not all the information but mostly of these that aren't "convencional" but I do not discard them all.

Ok lets put the facts on the table, alright?

Have you see the structures in Eastern Island? It CANT BE made by indigious people and tell me a REASON to that, was it a Salvador Dali's idea to show to others the inner art of making heads? Dozens of them?

The egyptians mentioned that "atlantis" was far west, it could be the americas or even in the pacific ocean.

When you move rocks that weighs like 20 ton, 35 ton, it doesnt matter how many people you have to move those rocks, the point is the technique. Also note that in Inca there is these "zigzags" rocks over there in which matchs with other megalithic strucutres in the world that these people DIDNT HAVE CONTACT between each other. See some people make igloos, others tents and so on. Why would these extraordinary people make pyramids? all around? …think about it, it must have a logic in it.

Btw NO PYRAMID in the world was made as a tomb, NONE of them. When they shoot the videos in Egypt they make you think they are recording inside of the pyramid, but they are recording in the "King's valley of the death", not inside of the pyramid. So another manipulation of data.

Why im telling you this? Because people in Brazil are told tht the first europeans to arrive in the Americas were the spaniards and the portuguese people, but in fact "according to modern history it was the vikings. I guarantee that 90% of the people in the south america probably dont know that.

As if you do a little research about it, and you start to scratch it you will realize that these archaeologists and anthropologists have imense wholes in their theories, arguments and hypothesis. They dont state that they have a "hypothesis or a theory" they tell it to people everyday as a fact, so once again they are manipulating the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument

You see? The way you do to date things is based on carbon, and a monument doesnt have much carbon in it, and even so if you take all the carbon in so many tons of rocks to date it wont tell you the date of the monument, it will give you the date of the rock. So, these people extrapolate, they see a campfire next to a monument which dates like 5 thousand years, and they state: ahhh these guys that built these monuments! You see? this is the logic of these people in order to date sucha things.

My honest advice that I would give it to you is to read a book called: Fingerprints of the Gods. It is free on the internet and if you cant find it tell me then i will send it to your email. Why Im saying this? Because this book is like Socrates in philosophy: there is before socrates and after socrates.

Cheers!

When you move rocks that weighs like 20 ton, 35 ton, it doesnt matter how many people you have to move those rocks, the point is the technique. Also note that in Inca there is these "zigzags" rocks over there in which matchs with other megalithic strucutres in the world that these people DIDNT HAVE CONTACT between each other. See some people make igloos, others tents and so on. Why would these extraordinary people make pyramids? all around? …think about it, it must have a logic in it.

The logic lies in itself. It is the natural way to build something. Something called the 'golden ratio'. YOu don't need knowledge of engineering to observe the perfection of the laws of nature.

There are some data that you have no knowledge about.

The great pyramid of Giza is made out of 2.500.000 stones, approximately, which each stone weighs around 20 tons. The "archaeologists" claim that the pyramid was made in honour of Kuphu's death (so a tomb). No evidenc what so ever that it was built as a tomb because they never found any treasury inside of this pyramid (and in any other else in the world). So the reign of this "pharaoh" would take around 30 to 40 years. So you need 2 stack 2.500.000 stones plus that the reign would only take like 30 to 40 years, the "archaeologists" claim that the pyramids were built during the flood of the nile, which was when the workers had "free time" to build such a thing, which is around 2 to 3 months. The area of the pyramid is 13 acres square, after placing 2.500.000 stones the accuracy of the building is so impressed that when they put the last stone they got a rate of 0.145 of accuracy. Plus the egyptians always talked about of everything they did and they put it on walls everywhere in egypt. And there is no mention of THEM building the pyramids, actually there are depicts saying that they "built the pyramids with the assistance of the sun gods.

The pyramid aligns exactly with the period of the solstice which occurs twice a year. Do you think that if you take 2.500.000 stones plus that exactly during a time, second, day and whatsoever to align it to the astronomical event is not trivial? Even our most modern telescopes dont have this achievement of mathematics.

I dont know if you noticed the pyramid is in the middle of the desert and we can actually tells where the quary is, which is so far from there. How can you move 20 ton rock in the middle of the desert? Without sink?

So the "archaeologists" say: no no, you know? there were vegetation, and good weather so they could run with rocks through there!

Really? Why these "hypothesis" have so damn huge wholes in it? It is simple: Because the last time where there were such a weather in Egypt in order to have trees and a perfect weather to live was 10 to 12 thousand years ago, this is explained by geologists that were far from 5 thousand years which "where" the egyptians emerged. You have a gap ot 5 to 7 thousand years, you are pretty damn f* kidding me, right?

The worst blind isnt the one that cant see, is the one that doesnt want to.

Why should the opinion of a retired linguistics professor matter when talking about Earth's climate system? Also if he has valid points why does no one (except the youtube comment section) give a shit? Why should I take everything some dude says on a youtube video as facts? Why does every conspiracy faggot link youtube videos instead of scientific studies? Is the majority of scientists a part of this global warming conspiracy?

Jews like you won't shut my mouth!!!!111

Raise your dongers \o/

Because he is one of the most recent and respected philosophers in the world and that he is alive?

Tbh philosophers shouldn't have any authority concerning climate change.

Philosophers to talk about many things in life, his point is not about "climate change" because the climate changes all the time in history everywhere. He's concerned about the manipulation of data in order to manipulate the people. That is his concern.

Btw if you think in that way, metaphysicis shouldnt have existed because it first came from philosophers. So my tip for you is to think about it! :)

Well, the ones who are manipulating are the ones claiming it's a hoax.

The whole hysteria about the matter started because of a presidential campaign. You know, the usual politician hugely exaggerating info in order to manipulate, while people don't fact check.

And what are the facts?

That the worries about global warming and that humanity's actions were going to have immediate and very much substantial effects resulted to be of a way lesser degree than what it was claimed to be 20 years ago. Lets remember those outrageous claims existed and were spread on mass media solely because of political manipulation.

This is not a matter of black or white, because while we do know global warming is indeed a thing (starts as a "black") we also do know it's way lesser than what it was said to be, in actuality making it a grey if not a white (a hoax) because of the huge difference. There's more possibilities than a yes it does exist and a no it does not exist; way too much simplification of a complex matter.

On that note, back in those days and even to this very moment, lots if not the majority of people still don't acknowledge the existence of cycles in climate changes and of external factors. I mean we do know humans have had an impact (a "black" or "yes"), but we still do not have complete certainty about if the current climate change was only, mostly or partially (a "grey") caused by those actions, or if it is only, mostly or partially a natural occurrence, like it has happened many times before, or if there are other factors such as other living beings having had a sizable impact too, or if it is caused by all of the above at the same time. Heck we don't even know if cow farts are the main issue here and in this very little time what scientists thought were the main concerns have changed already.

Above all, what I want to say is that the ones that manipulated the population were politicians that used and abused this information to benefit themselves, by widely exaggerating global warming for electoral purposes, and their claims are disproven already because of the timelines given at that moment. That means the individuals that say the described situation was mostly a hoax (which is proven to be at least a grey) aren't the ones manipulating people, like you say they are, but the ones that manipulated people are actually those that previously benefited from it.

I know this sounds a bit like * aliens, illuminati, the powers that be *, but what I wrote before is indeed how the hysteria started and how it has developed so far.

we still do not have complete certainty about if the current climate change was only, mostly or partially ... caused by [humans]

Who is we?

Please read comment #70 :)

You mean "It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"?

What you wrote means "Not complete certainty, not the only cause" :)


And that's not even the point of that post, which are that:
1.- Since the beginning this whole matter has been overrated to absurd extents.
2.- That the matter has always been oversimplified, even by you in this very thread.

Everyone knows global warming is indeed a thing, but what matters the most is how much the extent of it is and how much off the info said at the beginning was, which was manipulated to the point the exaggeration was so much the situation can be considered a hoax. Those are the point of those videos in the OP.

I was responding to a particular quote from your post.

we still do not have complete certainty about if the current climate change was only, mostly or partially ... caused by [humans]

It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century

Read the two back to back. You're deluded if you deny that humans are the majority cause of climate change.

And, even if it wasn't our fault at all, it's not like we can just ignore it! If someone put a hole in your ship, would you say "oh, it's not my fault, I'm not going to do anything about it"?

When Einstein first came up with his new theory all the rest of the people were skeptic and it took a time for those to accept his idea, why? because he could see beyond others couldnt, so you need to "the others" to get along with and study that in order to "match" their knowledge on the subject and then you can criticize it properly. But remember: Einstein came up with his theory without "proper math(or the math that the most of the people used to tackle with this subjects at that time), now we call it by Quantum Gravity(quantum theory). When you are a renowned Philosopher and you came up to defend such theory you are putting your whole career in game and you can be discredited by doing it, tell me others respected thinkers that defend the HYPOTHESIS of man made climate change and I'll give a credit to the guy.

Chomsky doesn't put anything on the line. Libertarian fanboys will follow him no matter what.

Forget about Chomsky, in the near future more people will become aware of it, it always take sometime to people recognize the work of the one another.

>Chomsky
>libertarian fanboys

But remember: Einstein came up with his theory without "proper math(or the math that the most of the people used to tackle with this subjects at that time), now we call it by Quantum Gravity(quantum theory)

The hell does this mean? Quantum mechanics didn't exist when he worked on SR/GR...

You completely misunderstood what Chomsky is saying in the video. He's saying anthropogenic climate change is real (and perhaps even more dangerous than some have predicted), and that it is NOT a liberal hoax. His point is that global warming deniers have managed to convince part of the public that it is a liberal hoax, when it isn't at all a hoax in reality.

THIS

The funny thing is that _agu seems to not realize that Chomsky is actually saying that anthropogenic climate change is very real.

If I didnt know that Chomsky supports the idea of climate change wouldnt you reall think that I wouldnt post it?

Chosmky just doesnt support the idea that some industries, power people, governments are claiming that climate change is made by human beings and not by the environment and so on.

No, again, you are wrong. Chomsky is saying that anthropogenic (= man-made) climate change is real and dangerous, and he is denouncing the fact that some people ("CEOs") have managed to convince part of the public that it isn't real/that humans are not to blame.

"global warming" resulted in multi billion eco industry. thats why you wont see the truth in common media.

it's not a hoax, it's a scam designed by and for big government.

I wanted to say rofl this sounds like a gSTRUCTOR thread but he was faster.

:_(

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/...REPORT.pdf

It's just the aliens stress-testing their creation. No reason to worry.

just wow.

Congratulations on losing all respect on this forum...

Q: Is climate change real?
A: Yes.

Q: Is human activity very largely to blame for climate change?
A: Yes.

I honestly thought this whole debate was over 5 years ago. It appears there are yet some outposts of denial...

/thread

Just look at the video above. :(

good laugh, but very concerning as well.

these daily shows like to put quotes out of context and manipulate to make the people talking look incredibly dumb and ignorant to anything. i noticed a case in the german edition, where a quote by Henry ford namely

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

which was a provoking quote to begin the speech was displayed as if it was the actual meaning of the speech.

this thread is kinda proof to my theory about ESR being full of dumb sheeps.

yes, global warming is real and no, its not result of human activity. we produce only a 0,0gibberish % of co2 and other gases that get into the atmosphere.

earths climate has cycles, and we're slowly coming back to middle ages climate, when it was much warmer, which kinda explains how people were able to survive in all these castles and mudhomes.


in the end, whole "global warming" is just a hoax, which cant be reversed, because it became a big industry and a reason to change your fridge every 3 years. just because its more eco and climate friendly,



in the end: fuck ecologists, nothing good came from them.

i agreed with all you typed, except that the ecologists have nothing good from them. There are some scientists that work for companies, governments, and so on. Then these guys usually arent respected because they work for money, not for the scientific communion. So I know some biologists in Brazil that are good guys (they also work with "ecological concepts") can be respected :).

Get the fuck out of here you undeducated reactionist.

Now I agree with you on quite a few topics, which I heard is dangerous to do.... ;)
But unfortunately you're wrong about this one.

It is true that a LOT of co2 (most) is caused by natural processes. As animals naturally produce a shitload of it.

But the main issue is that we deforrest the hell out of this planet. Next to that we also transfer things that are currently not in gas form to a greenhouse gas form. (most famously oil and coal)
Because these things are already abundant in nature (although we're salvaging it so fast that it's becomming rare) we can actually attribute a lot to global warming.

There are a lot of smaller details about research on this topic that I am against. But in general the climate is changing as a result of human actions. (next to that it also changes as a result of natural causes... But at this moment we're a major attributer)

i wouldnt say a lot is equal to 0,gibberish%(im seriously to lazy to count it :D). and i already took one zero after coma to consider deforestation, which i did not in the first place.


but as i already said somewhere along this topic, current thinking of global warmping goes along with this logic: the number of McDonalds restaurants its rising, so is human population. Junk food is the reason of rising number of people, prolly because McD feeds them.

No the current logic is similar to this:
People get fat from eating a lot at McDonalds.
More people eat at McDonalds.
More people become fat.

The correlation between the greenhouse gasses and global warming is not because the graphs look very similar. (Which is something that I heard before in a TED-talk... forgot which one. But that is such a BS argument that it made me go WTF!? I think it's even one of the argument in Al Gore's inconvenient truth.)

its exactly the same. theres a link between two occurences, and one doesnt exactly cause the other. at max it may have some impact.

There is a direct relationship between the amount of 'greenhouse gasses' and the ability for radiation to enter / leave a further closed system.

There are quite a few links to examples where they compare the temperature of a liquid in 2 bottles.
1 bottle is filled with 'regular outisde air' the other has greenhouse gasses added to the air in it.
The one with more gasses heats up faster & more.

That experiment is evidence enough in my eyes.

there is also a direct relationship between number of people and amount of food available

only if you're an exclusively cannibal.

seriously mate? that was bad joke :D


if eco system is not able to feed the population with its aggregated variety of food, then no population will grow.

my joke was logical, your statement is not.

In the western world there is an abundance of food, however the population is not growing rapidly.
The 3rd world countries however which have very limited amount of foods have seen a huge increase in birth. Which (although also leading to an increase in dead) does result in a rapidly growing population.

Now in a situation such as the later, your statement might make sense. However because growth in the west has slowed down while food has increased.... You're wrong.

theres no emission of greenhouse gasses in antarctica, yet the effects are seen there. remember our scale is whole world, not certain locations.

O_o?

"theres no emission of greenhouse gasses in antarctica"

It happens globally dumb fuck.
Still love you though <3

new mcd restaurants are also opened globally. thats exactly my point.

not in antarctica :(

mcpenguin would be an awesome sandwich :<

Animals produce co2 ?

I'd love to hear more about this

Cows shitting.

The whole mass animal breeding/processing/etc. industry does emit lots of CO2.

no you don't ;)
But it's true.

Methane :) CH4 not CO2. Also a greenhouse gas though. Also ProT's post ^

well depends on how you view things.
CH4 naturally dissolves into the much more stable molecules of CO2 + 2x H2O when in contact with oxigen.

But ok what comes 'directly from the cow' is mainly CH4.
It's arguing about details though...

"It's arguing about details though... "

Let's all cut corners everywhere :)

Well..... I'm not gonna make extremely detailed posts to an esr audience... Theres no real point in doing that.

We're just too witty and would debunk your false half-truths

ahh yes that must be it....

Or perhaps, as you so elegantly put it:
"We're all a bunch of cunts, but at least ESR userbase is fully aware of it." (where 'We' is refering to the esr community).

We surely outwitted you there

you don't troll me

why?

exactly.

Nigga

You're pretty much right, but the real point is that all the natural flows cancel out.

i.e. Trees respire and give some out, but photosynthesise and take some in.

So no matter how massive the natural flows are they are basically irrelevant, they don't change the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

The human flows are unbalanced, on the other hand.

why is there a 'but' in the first line of your post?
Do I not point out the same? :s

I just wanted to point out that you didn't mention the fact that natural flows of CO2 are balanced (i.e. same going in as out), which is really the critical point for people like hitsu to understand, who think that:

"because the natural flows are far, far bigger than human flows (true), the human ones are irrelevant (false)."

nature has a way of finding new equilibria itself.
Problem is which organism handle the shifts that will occur to find that new equilibrium and the eventual state the world ends up in.

I would assume that the human race can find ways to survive no matter what tbh.... But it's not a preferible solution (at this point in time)

Agreed. It would be far easier to try and slow global warming now, give us some thinking time to mitigate the effects it will cause...

This is the current best dataset of deforestation:

http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest

Rather sad :(

strange 'total overview' where they make everything that already had 75-100% of trees back in 2000 also marked as "extended" while it hasn't grown according to their own dataset in the grayscale.

So yes it's rather sad :(

Regarding deforestation, it seems that there are also (some) good news : http://www.economist.com/news/international/2...ring-trees

the earths climate has never changed in its entire history...
until man showed up and started burning fossil fuels...
then we had global warming.
even though all the other planets in the solar system are doing the same shit earth is doing...
because we burned so much stuff it leaked out into space and ruined the other planets.

even though the sun is fucking hot and heats the earth and sometimes goes through solar maximums which makes it more active and a lot fucking hotter.... its like setting the toaster on setting 6 and wondering how you fucked up. yea the extra heat from the sun is blown away by the chinese ... so obviously it's co2.

The first two sentences are fucking bollocks. Did you know that there's a semi-consensus in earth sciences saying that the entire earth has been covered with ice during the time stage 700-500 Ma before present? It makes a surprising amount of sense and would explain a lot of weird stuff.

When i fart, its gonna get warmer and warmer.. especially in my pants.

mmmmmm

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-czar-holdren-t...l-warming/

"Global warming is a hoax and the holocaust never happened" (c) ESR

9/11?

(c) ESR.br.com

agu, gstructor and all other BRs always get their panties in a bunch when it comes to conspiritard theories.

Oh and hitsu but he's from Poland which is the BR of EU.

PL? PL? CZE CZE CZE? JESTY POLAK? Gib mony IM Polend PROLEND

SIEMA PL

gimme the truf

u can't handle the truf

What about impact of Nibiru?

As a 5th semester geography & geology student I think that the systems in place can indeed get rather complicated and that there are various cycles the earth goes through. But anyone who denies the clear relation between present climate changes and human greenhouse gas outputs is an idiot.

As a 1st degree awesome person I think this thread is stupid.

ie Mayans had a calendar with cycles that cover 24.000+ years, oh but no advanced civilization existed before us for most esrtards. Laughable.

Too big egos thinking were the pinnacle of human civilization, when in fact we must be one of the dumbest to exist, nuclear plants is one of the proofs.

You come long before nuclear plants in the evidence of human stupidity column.

Keep enjoying radioactive particles from Fukushima in your northen hemisphere, bitch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, the best part is the bitching one haha!

At least I'll get something out of it, go sacrifice yourself to the gods to prove how civilized you are, dumbass.

i have that book. my grandma ordered every time life book during the 80's and 90's...edit i have all those books.

>no potholer videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

shits hilarious

How to manipulate a country:

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional...40094.html

I wish esreality users dem0n, demiurge and p0rt would chime in on this thoughtprovoking discussion.

Tempt not the fates.

Where's french anon when we need him?

the hoaxers are just not funny anymore

I just can't wait for the "origin of the universe" thread.

The germans had a moon-lander in 1944 just FYI

Lost Civilizations of the Andes: http://davidpratt.info/andes2.htm

Very accurate facts about the history and stone masonry of ancient Incas.

Excellent presentation, fact checking, photos. Author a bit of a looney though -- I thought it fits this thread rather well!

Incidentally, the same looney author also has one of the best summaries of the scientific state-of-the-art on human anthropology: http://davidpratt.info/ape1.htm .

Surely, the most entertaining read since Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything".

Nice links, thanks.

btw "quake is potat", dont read those links, or your close minded head will explode, well maybe not your denial instincts are pretty powerful, everything is right, go to bed now.

A nice explanation of global warming

http://youtu.be/cQTvrma2fKc?t=28m

with demo using a model with CO2 atmosphere and an infrared radiation source

http://youtu.be/cQTvrma2fKc?t=33m54s

You're so dumb, it hurts my close minded brain.

I love how these super advanced hi-tech ancient civilizations all disappeared without leaving anything but a couple of stones for us, it's almost like they only had stone age technology.

Or maybe these stones aren't actually manmade, but natural phenomena.
But this is just the opinion of big ego money maker scientists with dollar signs in their eyes. They CANNOT be trusted, mate.

Never trust people with education.

Stone age technology? lol, stones cope with huge time lapses very well.

You can watch ancient aliens debunked if you want too see how these stones were moved and cut. Even if it is called ancient aliens debunked it covers how the stones were moved and cut when they built the pyramids and some other places.

Just because they have a theory doesnt means thats how they did it.

The documentary goes through things like that, it was a long time since i watched it but it was worth a look because they go through how people try too lie to you by leaving out details.

So i suggest that you watch it even though it is a very long documentary. It begins with explaining Pumapunku and how it could be build and how people lie about how it would have required very advanced tools.

Here you can watch it for free if you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-nwqpw5l_0

We couldnt do it with the technology we have today, wouldnt you call them advanced? And theres so many possibilities, from giants (there were giant insects, giant vegetation, why no giant humans?), to cymatics, and so many theories we cant even imagine. The stone monuments the Mayans found and added theyre inferior stone works, at least egyptian pyramids are made with simple shaped stones, in mesoamerica you found those absolutely crazy gigantic stones with 10+ angles fitting perfectly between the other rocks. "Egyptian" pyramids have perfect relation in their structure and between them to many distant and close space objects. The 24000 year aprox great year of plato and mayans, thats not advanced too? Theres at least 1 highly advanced previous civilization and somehow part of their knowledge reached different parts of the world. We, being less advanced, already have seed vaults, self suficient bunkers in the new world order airport in denver mountains, and so on.

Life and the universe is much more interesting than the flouride calcified heavy metals dumbified average human of today can even consider, because you know, some people alraedy know everything.

"Truth is a pathless land"

Hoax or no hoax, free markets neccessary to deal with it.

I think they conveyed pretty compelling facts and consequences of global warming in Cosmos:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x25x0on_cosm...et-free_tv

I find it rather arrogant assuming we puny humans have any real signifficant impact on this planet George Carlin had a nice talk about it see if i can find it.

We have, but i find it funny that so much noise is made about co2, which has raised temps slightly, and other much worse things like radiation that stays for thousands and millions of years from nuclear plants isnt on the news. Wheres the panel about Fukushima? Why no mainstream news about it? It keeps pouring radioactive particles since 2011 in the northern hemisphere jet stream and pacific ocean, but not a peep in mainstream news.

Im sure the nuclear energy cartel has nothing to do with it bc everybody is good willed people and nobody cares about money. The Media cant be bought because journalism. "Science" created those monsters so they cant be wrong. At least thats what i learned from most answers on this thread.

did you sleep in 2011? The whole year there were no other news. Did you completely miss the political impact it had in terms`of discussion about nuclear power even in Japan and much higher demand of renewable energy sources all across the world? What do you want to hear about it? i think there are extensive predictions of what will happen long-term and i´m sure there is some sort of a fukushima-panel. Also the long-term effects are much more local if you can stop eating japanese fish as opposed to GLOBAL warming

But its 2014 and its only getting worse, dont you think it should still get some coverage?

Im sure there will be coverage in march. Afterall its an incident from the past and theres not much to say anymore

Its an incident from the past that is still happening and worsening, imo there a lot to say.

in germany the fukushima news had an impact to politics.

also there was a new documentation released. in german language - but i think other channels will translate it in the near future

http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Reportage-Dokum...d=24500396

Germany is one of the few countries that took this problem seriously and did some good things.

but the energy topic is a mess here.

germany subsidized windcraft and solar energy and after a few years it was took away. So these relativily new sectors both crashed.

if we need energy capacities in the future because we will shut down atom reactors we will buy atomic capacities in nearby countries. lol

we have no official depot for atomic fuel rod and atomic waste, because of protest of enviroment movement.

now brown coal power stations are a alternative again (co2, ). i thought this was the past...

now we need a new energy law to brake the energy price explosion.

and from a documentary i found out plasma reactors need 10-20 years of development.

that´s modest but not really realistic. humans made nature their bitch. if you cut down every tree and keep burning fossil fuels, air will get thin. Alternatively if you collect all nuclear bombs and let them detonate there will be an considerable effect on our planet aswell.

gods doing

Where does he work for?

Used to do science shows for kids on some american tv station. Now, i don't know.

he set the the scots were going to take apart of the english union(UK) and i see this?…

…:)

it is a joke :)

... what.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2014/11/...tter-goes/

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/05/...nce-crowd/

Clearly not working fast enough, still cold as fuck here.

It is all bullshit, and it is not good for you.

The rise in CO2 levels happens with the natural progression of a global warming period. Unfortunately for us now, we are entering a mini "Ice Age". So it is gonna colder not hotter.

For all the uninformed people who think CO2 is poison need to get some facts straight. CO2 is plant food and a basic element for life on this earth.

CO2 emissions are measured in parts per million. We have about 364 parts per million. You would need 30,000 parts per million to start to feel some negative effects of CO2, like light headiness.
Something that's not gonna happen.

93% of CO2 emissions are released naturally, only 7% are released from man made industries. But the important fact here is that CO2 has a very poor ability as a green house gas. Water vapor is what causes a blockage of heat, not CO2.

In other words the whole CO2 debacle is nothing more than an agenda by the globalists to spring in control different sections of industries and population control. Using the bs propaganda they could shut down coal power plants, promote the idea that people need to be confined in small spaces to "save the earth" and a whole lot of other ideas for control.

They are trying to use the global warming hoax to promote agendas for complete control of every sector of industry and human life.

It is true that humans pollute. But it is also true that with modern technology coal power plants produce almost no pollution. Its a very clean process that produces good clean energy.

We need to focus on things that actually are proven to do damage instead of focusing on something that is essential for life like CO2. Human beings release CO2 when they breathe. In fact a dump in CO2 emissions would have catastrophic consequences for the human race. It would drop vegetation and cause even a bigger food crisis

When I try to explain that with my limit knowledge they think I'm talking about conspiracies. The point is just because it "sounds" conspiracy they alleged that it is a false statement. Unfortunately the reality is out there, and not many can perceive it.

...no one is saying CO2 is bad because it will cause affects like "light headiness" LMAO

The point of that comment was to tell you that CO2 is not a poison but a basic element of life. And even if its presence increased by 1000% from the current level the worst effect I could think off is it would cause light headiness.

It was an illustration to show how much of a lie this whole issue is and has been for the past years.

I remmeber when Al Gore used to say that the Antartic will melt, while the opposite has happened. The ice has actually increased and covered more areas. We have a record number of polar bears now as well.

"Winter is coming" is gonna probably the coldest one in a long long time.

The point of that comment was to tell you that CO2 is not a poison but a basic element of life

Something can be both poisonous and a "basic element of life"...

even if its presence increased by 1000% from the current level the worst effect I could think off is it would cause light headiness.

How do you know that? What are you qualifications?

Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.

Philip von Hohenheim, better known as Paracelsus
(if you wish you can call him the founder of toxicology)


So you're kinda thinking a bit pre 1500 here. A lot of things can happen in 500 years. I suggest you read up ;)