OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bazal]

Was anyone bar Gronk actually arguing with you?

I wasn't really paying attention...

 

[Gary Gutful]

I hope @Hollywood Beardo wasn't aiming that at me. I'd be pretty offended...

 

[Gronk]

Let me spell it out a little bit for Gronky and pals...I'm going to use a thing called...wait for it...logic.

I know, fellas...it's not something you're used to using. Just calm down and stay with me.

What you do first is remove the carbon dioxide tracking and just look at the temperature by itself. Then you ask a question: Is there a pattern here? Do we see a trend in the temperature data by itself?

The answer is yes - 30 year intervals, as I have already laid out.

Now, put the carbon dioxide trend back in and ask a second question: At what point could the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide begin to influence the temperature graph?

Here are some possible answers:
1) 1980 - (Based on there being a lag between carbon dioxide introduction and influence) Unfortunately, this then rules out anthropogenic climate change, because we see that the trend has existed prior to the theoretical carbon dioxide influence and does not change after that. If the existing trend stays the same then carbon dioxide had no influence;

2) Well, then, 1940!!! - (Based on there being no lag, in order to try and consume as much of the non-carbon trend as possible to sway the trend in favour of carbon dioxide influence and establish some kind of argument) Unfortunately, we still have the problem of 1880-1910 and 1910-1940 that establishes the trend. In addition, however, no lag (and an immediate effect) is automatically killed by the fact that temperature drops from 1940, and does so again around 2000. This doesn't work, then, either;

3) Since 1880 - (In order to try and say that the entire trend is carbon influenced). Well, there wasn't enough of an increase between 1880 and 1920 to produce the 1920-1940 rise, so that's out of the question. And, if you still want to attribute the 1910-1940 rise to carbon (in order to salvage some kind of argument) then this falls apart when you see the 1970-2000 rise mirrors the 1910-1940 rise in scope, despite a significant increase in carbon. For this last possibility to be true, the 1970-2000 would have had to be significantly bigger, considering the significant difference in the 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 carbon dioxide levels. Unfortunately, this doesn't play out the way you would like it to, so this theory is gone, as well.

So, using ONLY the data that YOU provided, it is CLEAR that there is no way to attribute the 1970-2000 temperature increase to rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. At NO POINT can a trend be established that would illustrate causality.

But I'm cherry picking, right? I'm doing that by...using YOUR DATA, and doing so, in what must obviously be a bigoted way, IN ITS ENTIRETY.

In conclusion - #OrangeManBad.

Case closed, bigots.

I think it’s hilarious that a nuffy without commensurate qualifications and experience to say, um NASA, attempts to post a rebuttal to in some way

disprove significant anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

How does he do this ? He uses sleight of hand statistics and waffle to bamboozle his fellow laypersons, hoping that he impressess. I mean it’s not hard is it ...

Gotta ask you though, why is it that Australians who sit on the right of politics tend to argue (in varying degrees) the case against the legitimacy of “climate change”, yet your brethren in the UK fully acknowledge it and have adopted a bipartisan approach for decades ? Same goes with the far right politicians in Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, Israel etc etc.

Yet in Australia and most recently in the USA, chaps on the right are unconcerned agnostics through to conspiracy theorists. A recent poll of Republicans showed that only 15 percent of conservative Republicans, for instance, think climate scientists "give full and accurate info about causes of climate change." Eleven percent of that same group—and just 19 percent of moderates—say scientists understand the causes "very well." Nine percent of conservatives say current climate research reflects the best available evidence, while 57 percent think it's influenced by scientists' desire to further their careers and 54 percent say it's influenced by their political leanings. The Pew Poll conclusion was that in contrast to the majority of the developed western word: Climate change isn't happening, it's just made up by money-grubbing PhDs, but even if it was, it wouldn't cause any really bad effects to the environment, and even if it did, we couldn't do anything to help.

Why is that ?

 

[El Diablo]

time for @Gronk to burn her bra

 

[Gronk]

time for @Gronk to burn her bra

Oh shit, he's melting !

 

[Gary Gutful]

I think it’s hilarious that a nuffy without commensurate qualifications and experience to say, um NASA, attempts to post a rebuttal to in some way

disprove significant anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

How does he does this ? He uses sleight of hand statistics and waffle to bamboozle his fellow laypersons, hoping that he impressess. I mean it’s not hard is it ...

Gotta ask you though, why is it that Australians who sit on the right of politics tend to argue (in varying degrees) the case against the legitimacy of “climate change”, yet your brethren in the UK fully acknowledge it and have adopted a bipartisan approach for decades ? Same goes with the far right politicians in Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, Israel etc etc.

Yet in Australia and most recently in the USA, chaps on the right are unconcerned agnostics through to conspiracy theorists. A recent poll of Republicans showed that only 15 percent of conservative Republicans, for instance, think climate scientists "give full and accurate info about causes of climate change." Eleven percent of that same group—and just 19 percent of moderates—say scientists understand the causes "very well." Nine percent of conservatives say current climate research reflects the best available evidence, while 57 percent think it's influenced by scientists' desire to further their careers and 54 percent say it's influenced by their political leanings. The Pew Poll conclusion was that in contrast to the majority of the developed western word: Climate change isn't happening, it's just made up by money-grubbing PhDs, but even if it was, it wouldn't cause any really bad effects to the environment, and even if it did, we couldn't do anything to help.

Why is that ?

We have a f**kload of natural resources that have a significant role to play even in a lower carbon world.

In my experience a lot of people

On the right

are petrified of the idea that any concession re: Climate Change will result in uneccesarily strong regulation of our resources industry instead of strong global action.

I know which option our weak willed politicians will favour.

 

[strider]

f**kin hell HJ, can you please just discuss the graphs gronk is providing ... is it that hard?

 

[84 Baby]

What I find odd about the whole debate is that we’re not going to kill the planet, but pumping shit into the atmosphere sure as shit might kill us and surely that’s enough incentive to at least come to some sort of reasoned agreement

 

[Gronk]

Is a pie really a pie if it doesn’t have a pastry top. I would consider that more of a tart than a pie.

In any case I would still eat the f**ker.

I agree with you, but agree with Maryanne more.

 

[Eelogical]

I agree with you, but agree with Maryanne more.

I'd take Maryanne over some piece or ginger anytime.

 

[strider]

Is a pie really a pie if it doesn’t have a pastry top. I would consider that more of a tart than a pie.

In any case I would still eat the f**ker.

So where does this fit?

 

[Gary Gutful]

What I find odd about the whole View attachment 25639 debate View attachment 25640 is that we’re not going to kill the planet, but pumping shit into the atmosphere sure as shit might kill us and surely that’s enough incentive to at least come to some sort of reasoned agreement

What does a

reasoned agreement

on climate change look like?

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Gronk]

What I find odd about the whole View attachment 25639 debate View attachment 25640 is that we’re not going to kill the planet, but pumping shit into the atmosphere sure as shit might kill us and surely that’s enough incentive to at least come to some sort of reasoned agreement

Nothing to see here. In fact go buy a coal powered truck.

 

[Gary Gutful]

What I find odd about the whole View attachment 25639 debate View attachment 25640 is that we’re not going to kill the planet, but pumping shit into the atmosphere sure as shit might kill us and surely that’s enough incentive to at least come to some sort of reasoned agreement

Nothing to see here. In fact go buy a coal powered truck.

I hope we have some more sophisticated merkins than you pair negotiating climate change policy.

 

[84 Baby]

What does a

reasoned agreement

on climate change look like?

How much shit does one person spew into the air, how much can that person live with, how much can be recycle into something not as toxic, and a thousand other questions? But yeah until enough othe people agree with me, there’s not enough direct impact on me to stop driving my filth spewing car, solo everyday to earn money in order to refuel said car

I hope we have some more sophisticated merkins than you pair negotiating climate change policy.

I hope so too but given I’m sitting shirtless in front of tv, potentially doing an Al Bundy i.e. one hand down the derps, I really don’t see how anyone could be as sophisticated as I

 

[Eelogical]

Not worth an emoji.

 

[Gary Gutful]

How much shit does one person spew into the air, how much can that person live with, how much can be recycle into something not as toxic, and a thousand other questions? But yeah until enough othe people agree with me, there’s not enough direct impact on me to stop driving my filth spewing car, solo everyday to earn money in order to refuel said car

Conversely 1.3 Billion people live without power. It's easy for someone in a privileged position to caution everyone else about the need for moderation.

I hope so too but given I’m sitting shirtless in front of tv, potentially doing an Al Bundy i.e. one hand down the derps, I really don’t see how anyone could be as sophisticated as I

I have both hands down the derps.

#CheckMate

 

[Gary Gutful]

Not worth an emoji.

⁞⁝•ֱ̀␣̍•́⁝⁞

 

[84 Baby]

Conversely 1.3 Billion people live without power. It's easy for someone in a privileged position to caution everyone else about the need for moderation.

Tis true but I don’t actually care that much. My problem is more with those that are strongly anti-climate change.

I have both hands down the derps.

#CheckMate

Derps on head

#throwsboardongroundandrubsyourfaceinit