OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Eelogical]

So true

I bought something recently and it was cardboard wrapped in plastic wrapped in plastic

And those f**king coles collectable little shit crap .... ffs - just a tonne of plastic to throw away

Papa Guiseppe's frozen pizza? You must have bought 10 to get your collectible.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Remember the shitfest involved with removing plastic and stickers from CDs? Thank f**k for Spotify.

 

[Eelogical]

Remember the shitfest involved with removing plastic and stickers from CDs? Thank f**k for Spotify.

What's a CD? Some sort of 'toy'?

 

[Gary Gutful]

What's a CD? Some sort of 'toy'?

If it’s not 78 rpm I am not interested!

 

[Eelogical]

If it’s not 78 rpm I am not interested!

I'm sure chippy would have a car for you to buy.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You are focusing on snapshots in time and overlooking long term trends.

I'm focusing on the only period of time where we can directly measure the atmosphere's temperature.

No, sorry...I'm focusing on the exact period of time YOU presented in a graph as evidence.

Your graph shows the only correlation is 1970-2000. Unfortunately (for you) your graph also shows that a similar spike happened only 60 years earlier - before there was any possible influence on the climate from carbon dioxide.

And I'm not overlooking long term trends. I looked at the longest possible trend from YOUR graph - from beginning to end - and showed there was a stable, long term trend from before any possible theoretical influence of carbon dioxide to after, thus eliminating any possible influence of carbon dioxide on climate.

 

[Gronk]

I'm focusing on the only period of time where we can directly measure the atmosphere's temperature.

No, sorry...I'm focusing on the exact period of time YOU presented in a graph as evidence.

Your graph shows the only correlation is 1970-2000. Unfortunately (for you) your graph also shows that a similar spike happened only 60 years earlier - before there was any possible influence on the climate from carbon dioxide.

And I'm not overlooking long term trends. I looked at the longest possible trend from YOUR graph - from beginning to end - and showed there was a stable, long term trend from before any possible theoretical influence of carbon dioxide to after, thus eliminating any possible influence of carbon dioxide on climate.

I'm not sure if your mindset stems from intentional deception or cognitive bias, but it seems that you will never concede.

You insist of cherry-picking snapshots in time in an attempt to disprove an alarming trend. A layperson arguing with academics. I sir, prefer to er on the side of caution and place my trust in science, of which by and large has done a pretty good job steering the ship so far.

 

[hindy111]

Best to be on the safe side and look after the planet. It can be small steps.
Natural is always better

 

[strider]

Best to be on the safe side and look after the planet. It can be small steps.
Natural is always better

#saynotofaketits

 

[Bandwagon]

I'm focusing on the only period of time where we can directly measure the atmosphere's temperature.

No, sorry...I'm focusing on the exact period of time YOU presented in a graph as evidence.

Your graph shows the only correlation is 1970-2000. Unfortunately (for you) your graph also shows that a similar spike happened only 60 years earlier - before there was any possible influence on the climate from carbon dioxide.

And I'm not overlooking long term trends. I looked at the longest possible trend from YOUR graph - from beginning to end - and showed there was a stable, long term trend from before any possible theoretical influence of carbon dioxide to after, thus eliminating any possible influence of carbon dioxide on climate.

It's kinda cute how you think that your interpretation of a graph can definitively prove that carbon dioxide has no influence on climate even though this flies in the face of scientific facts we have known for around a hundred years or so.

Physics and chemistry both inform us of the properties of carbon dioxide, and have done well before any one ever heard of Al Gore.

It is a greenhouse gas, and as such it does have an influence on our climate.

 

[hindy111]

#saynotofaketits

Ridiculous looking things. Ever felt a pair? They are soft for maybe 1 cm then you can feel the gel bag they inserted.

 

[strider]

Ridiculous looking things. Ever felt a pair? They are soft for maybe 1 cm then you can feel the gel bag they inserted.

I genuinely think just about any real ones are better than beach ball tits

 

[hindy111]

I genuinely think just about any real ones are better than beach ball tits

They look fine under clothes but once out they look a little silly.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

It's kinda cute how you think that your interpretation of a graph can definitively prove that carbon dioxide has no influence on climate even though this flies in the face of scientific facts we have known for around a hundred years or so.

Physics and chemistry both inform us of the properties of carbon dioxide, and have done well before any one ever heard of Al Gore.

It is a greenhouse gas, and as such it does have an influence on our climate.

It is a greenhouse gas. A very ineffective one (GWP = 1). It is far less effective than methane, for example (28), or Nitrous Oxide (~280).

And is it my interpretation of the graph, is it? The graph doesn't show what I said it does, then?

You insist of cherry-picking snapshots in time in an attempt to disprove an alarming trend. A layperson arguing with academics. I sir, prefer to er on the side of caution and place my trust in science, of which by and large has done a pretty good job steering the ship so far.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I used the graph that YOU provided.

I could go right ahead and provide my own graphs - say, of the proxy data from the Vostok ice cores that show carbon dioxide increases have never preceded temperature increases...ever. Or, various other proxy data sets from around the world that show that the MWP and LIA actually occurred, thus blowing the fraudulent hockey stick graph out of the water.

But, no, I didn't do that. I used the graph that YOU provided, in its entirety. That's not cherry picking, Gronky.

 

[Bandwagon]

It is a greenhouse gas. A very ineffective one (GWP = 1). It is far less effective than methane, for example (28), or Nitrous Oxide (~280)..

Ah, so a gas that has "no possible influence on climate" now has a GWP? Make up your mind mate.

And is it my interpretation of the graph, is it? The graph doesn't show what I said it does, then?
.

Yes it is, and no it doesn't.

" thus eliminating any possible influence of carbon dioxide on climate." this is your conclusion, and this is a nonsense.For as you unwittingly allude to above, CO2 is not the the only driver of climate, there are many, and to attempt to conclude that which you have from so little information is either wilfully ignorant or wilfully dishonest, take your pick.

 

[hindy111]

I prefer a pie chart. Easier to understand

 

[Gronk]

I prefer a pie chart. Easier to understand

 

[T.S Quint]

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.

 

[hindy111]

Maybe put it outside for 20yrs and see if it melts any faster over the years. HJ can be the taste tester. If he dies or get gastric chances are Climate change is real.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

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.