More Americans want their politicians to support climate science

sam.psihoyos

New member
New poll by nytimes and Stanford finds many more Americans support politicians who admit to climate change than did in 2011.
http://news.yahoo.com/new-poll-find...rnment-to-fight-climate-change-212729195.html

This trend will grow, in a few decades it will look odd and funny when people deny it.

Dear climate denier, What am I to say? Shrug. All you deniers have the same access to information that I do. Not only is it happening, it's man made. Let me break it down for you:

We are a planet with closest neighbors Venus and Mars. Everything I'm about to say is scientific fact so just listen, don't talk over this knowledge:

CO2 is everywhere in our solar system and the universe, it is one of the most common elements, and we know that the "greenhouse gas affect" is entirely real when an atmosphere contains elements like methane or co2. Venus' surface is 800 degree F exactly because of a runaway affect of greenhouse gas with methane, radio telescopes show us this. Methane is 22X or more potent as a greenhouse gas than is CO2. A cow can fill up a 55 gallon bag of methane in an hour and we have 1.3 billion cows, more than cars in the world. So our livestock is more impactful than all our transportation sector. Our atmosphere is thinner than a coat of varnish on a beach ball, it's very thin. It's the most delicate thing we know of.

Anyway, here is the reason you should care. And you haven't heard of it, surprisingly. Are you ready to find out? Here it is, the reason you should care: a worldwide mass extinction event. It has already begun, it is well on its way. This is fact. Each year one in a million species should expire naturally. We are driving them to extinction a thousand times faster than that. It's so severe that in less than a hundred years we will lose half of the species on Earth, so we're in it. Just look it up online. This hasn't happened since a meteor hit Mexico 65 million years ago. If you don't care about a worldwide mass extinction of half of species, then a better sperm should have met egg when your parents had sex, you are a waste of life.

You can put CO2 anywhere in the solar system, I don't care it's fucking huge, vast enormous, the universe is a violent, dangerous cosmic place but our atmosphere is here to save us, it's perfect for us in every way, leave it the way it naturally is. Nuke Mars or even our moon but do not support burning gas engines inside our atmosphere

Your credentials will be on the line if you want to argue. Many of you deniers listen to parents and friends for information or huge news stations with tainted motives. If you argue then you are disagreeing with Elon Musk for instance. The smartest man in the world works 18 hour days for many years in full support of exactly what's here. Your parents or friends might disagree, but they're not Elon Musk. NASA 100% agrees but you don't have to be a scientist to understand that co2 and methane trap heat. Simple. I want to extend my hand to you, reader to come into the light, this is the future. Trust in science. Let's burn CO2 on mars so it can create it's own greenhouse has affect, if we were burning the same amount of co2 and methane on Mars it would develop its own greenhouse gas affect and in less than 200 years we would literally have 2 atmospheres to live in as a species, and trees could thrive on Mar's co2, eventually we could have 2 worlds after. Don't personify God and leave it in his hands, that ends in extinction. Trust science and in 100 generations we have 2 planets to live on. Science has got us this far, rockets, jet engines, smart phones, all engineering teams working magic. Trust science, we will be in good hands. 97% of scientists agree with me, eventually it'll be like denying cigarettes have carcinogens. Why not be an early adopter, be a part of the future. After the civil war, slave owners had to admit defeat and their offspring distanced themselves from slavery. The same trend will happen because mass extinction is generally frowned upon. Open your ears, don't argue. Come to the light.

Thank you,

Sam

I like to add a poll to many threads because I like to hear what you think, but here there is no poll, this is all for you to listen to Truth. Scientific Fact. That's all I offer.
 
Stopped reading after you said all that follows is scientific fact then claim CO2 is an element
 
13316706:VinnieF said:
Stopped reading after you said all that follows is scientific fact then claim CO2 is an element

Vinnieis right, CO2 is definitely not an element. Carbon and Oxygen might be, but CO2 is just another compound. If I remember correctly (haven't taken a chem class in like 3 years) CO2 makes up far less than 1% of our atmosphere and nitrogen and oxygen make up like 99%, so it really isn't that 'common'.
 
I don't think anyone is denying that the world is getting warmer right now. What they are arguing is that it could be just a trend. What about the ice age? Is there no possibility that the world could go through a warmer trend? No doubt some things we put into the atmosphere are harmful, but just saying that's how they're looking at it, they're not completely denying that anythings happening
 
13316887:.ttelrab. said:
I don't think anyone is denying that the world is getting warmer right now. What they are arguing is that it could be just a trend. What about the ice age? Is there no possibility that the world could go through a warmer trend? No doubt some things we put into the atmosphere are harmful, but just saying that's how they're looking at it, they're not completely denying that anythings happening
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

"The only identifiable cause explaining these changes with confidence is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Science has simply not found any other cause factor that can account for the scale of the recent increase in radiative forcing and associated warming."
 
13316887:.ttelrab. said:
I don't think anyone is denying that the world is getting warmer right now. What they are arguing is that it could be just a trend. What about the ice age? Is there no possibility that the world could go through a warmer trend? No doubt some things we put into the atmosphere are harmful, but just saying that's how they're looking at it, they're not completely denying that anythings happening

No, we very much caused it. The only scientists who say otherwise are usually paid by people like the Koch brothers to come up with some bullshit argument
 
i post this in every climate change argument.

JoelPett_ClimateSummitHoaxForNothing_120709.jpg
 
The only rational argument I've ever heard against climate change is that we should probably wait 50 or 60 years for the technology to come around for us to actually be able to do something about it. Which is probably what will happen anyway.

A lot of people don't realize that climate change denial is complete willful ignorance because of campaign contributions. If you aren't getting paid millions of dollars by an energy company and you're still denying climate science you are just a moron.
 
13316961:Shredsterr said:
"Nuke Mars or even our moon but do not support burning gas engines inside our atmosphere"

Ya let's not do that.

I'll break it down with pleasure. Nuking mars would at least heat it up. We have detonated a thousand nukes in the South Pacific and across the globe, all the way up to 50 fucking megatons in Siberia from Russian defense. Add just a little more uranium and the majority of debris enters fucking orbital flight, that's how big an explosion a 15+ megaton is. So correct me if I'm wrong, you're less apposed to nuking pristene bikini atoll in the most marine bio rich environment. But lifeless mars is part of nature and shouldn't be touched.

Anyone of you, elaborate with substance. Get on my level of argument. Provide your sources.

Bona Fide Genius Carl Sagan said:

"For me, the most ironic token of [the first human moon landing] is the plaque signed by President Richard M. Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the moon. It reads, ‘We came in peace for all Mankind.’ As the United States was dropping seven and a half megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our humanity. We would harm no one on a lifeless rock."

So yea, you'll need to elaborate if you want to present a good argument.
 
I don't see what nuking mars has to do with climate change on earth. I'd be worried about sending a nuclear weapon up on a rocket, which tend to explode from time to time.

I don't think you're going to find anybody on here who believes climate change is a lie or something.
 
13316991:sam.psihoyos said:
So correct me if I'm wrong, you're less apposed to nuking pristene bikini atoll in the most marine bio rich environment. But lifeless mars is part of nature and shouldn't be touched.

Anyone of you, elaborate with substance. Get on my level of argument. Provide your sources.

I agree with all the points, opinions, and arguments you have been making, however you are a fucking horrendous mouthpiece for the change you are trying to see.

First you say that CO2 is an element, then you infer from pure fucking thin air that a guy who simply doesnt want to nuke our moon for the helluvit also wants to nuke the south pacific. Finally, you you provided ZERO sources of your own, but call out everone else's lack of sources?

If i was to get on your intellectual level, i would have to forget the last 10 years of my schooling.
 
I have a degree in geoscience with a focus in atmospheric science and to be honest I'm still way more bothered by pollution and our irresponsible use of natural teso
 
13316886:kshaughn said:
Vinnieis right, CO2 is definitely not an element. Carbon and Oxygen might be, but CO2 is just another compound. If I remember correctly (haven't taken a chem class in like 3 years) CO2 makes up far less than 1% of our atmosphere and nitrogen and oxygen make up like 99%, so it really isn't that 'common'.

CO2 is at ~400 PPM nowadays. It is much less common than N2 but for a compound to create radiative forcing it needs a dipole to interact with EM waves. Carbon dioxide is less potent than methane and water vapor but looking at atmospheric residence time gives a different story.

OP is right about extinction, although his time frame may be off, it's really hard to tell. Historically, earth has been uninhabitable (unsustainable O2 levels for life as we know it) for the VAST majority of the 5.4 billion years it's been around (The Great Oxidation Event / BIF). There was a time when earth was ~2000 PPM C02 and the oceans were near 100 degrees F and hyper acidic.

As humans we are performing a very dangerous experiment on our precious planet. Global warming is much much more complex than just saying "C02 is bad."
 
13317591:Loco-Deer-Slayer said:
CO2 is at ~400 PPM nowadays. It is much less common than N2 but for a compound to create radiative forcing it needs a dipole to interact with EM waves. Carbon dioxide is less potent than methane and water vapor but looking at atmospheric residence time gives a different story.

OP is right about extinction, although his time frame may be off, it's really hard to tell. Historically, earth has been uninhabitable (unsustainable O2 levels for life as we know it) for the VAST majority of the 5.4 billion years it's been around

Wut
http://bit.ly/1uPJFuW
 
One side tots that its not real and the other that self-sacrifice is the only solution.

How about we solve the issue with advancement and scientific discoveries so that we can both live as we have become accustomed and do so by not killing the earth.
 
13317703:AT-AT said:
One side tots that its not real and the other that self-sacrifice is the only solution.

How about we solve the issue with advancement and scientific discoveries so that we can both live as we have become accustomed and do so by not killing the earth.

thats fine. while we work on developing that technology(which we are), should we just continue fucking up the planet full steam ahead? or should we maybe do our best to conserve our resources right now, so we dont have such a massive obstacle to overcome once that technology comes to fruition?

Please try and keep your thoughts based in logic and reality. thanks.
 
oops yes definitely 4.5 not 5.4 got my numbers backwards hahah.

Isotope dating with the use of isochrons and primordials have been extremely helpful tools in tracking earth's climate history (much like O2 isotopes in ice cores, but we are very limited to recent years with that method).

I'd imagine 99.9% of scientists agree climate change is happening but to what degree is the hard question. Statistics are very misleading and people can very much come up with "numbers" that look factual from real data that do not support global warming (ie Antarctic ice sheet volume growing in some areas despite average global temps rising).

I think it's a touchy subject because it is so complex. To me the greatest indicator of change is in the ocean chemistry with CCD and Aragonite solubility levels drastically changing, acidity, temps, circulation, and heat content.

Although oceans are often considered one of the great reservoirs for CO2, sedimentary rocks BY FAR outweigh the oceans capacity. Funny thing is as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere there is a positive feed back process with the weathering of these rocks that in turn releases more of this stored CO2.

We indeed are playing a very dangerous game.
 
13317728:californiagrown said:
thats fine. while we work on developing that technology(which we are), should we just continue fucking up the planet full steam ahead? or should we maybe do our best to conserve our resources right now, so we dont have such a massive obstacle to overcome once that technology comes to fruition?

Please try and keep your thoughts based in logic and reality. thanks.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. No one wants to do anything about it but bitch.

Ten years ago if you told people that you would be able to have access to almost anything on an object smaller than a beer coaster they would have thought you insane.

Or even 5 years ago you told someone that for under 25 dollars you could own a PC (Raspberry pi).

Technology is the answer.

If you want to create change, create it. Don't stand there and preach self sacrifice, for the only end of a martyr is death.
 
13317930:AT-AT said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No one wants to do anything about it but bitch.

Ten years ago if you told people that you would be able to have access to almost anything on an object smaller than a beer coaster they would have thought you insane.

Or even 5 years ago you told someone that for under 25 dollars you could own a PC (Raspberry pi).

Technology is the answer.

If you want to create change, create it. Don't stand there and preach self sacrifice, for the only end of a martyr is death.

my extremely easy to understand point went right over your head, huh?

Why should we needlessly continue digging our hole deeper while we wait for the needed tech to develop? When that new tech does come around, wouldnt you like it to take 10 years instead of 50 to reverse and/or stabilize climate change?

Why are you so opposed to clean water to drink, air to breathe, and a generally cleaner environment?
 
13317478:californiagrown said:
I agree with all the points, opinions, and arguments you have been making, however you are a fucking horrendous mouthpiece for the change you are trying to see.

First you say that CO2 is an element, then you infer from pure fucking thin air that a guy who simply doesnt want to nuke our moon for the helluvit also wants to nuke the south pacific. Finally, you you provided ZERO sources of your own, but call out everone else's lack of sources?

If i was to get on your intellectual level, i would have to forget the last 10 years of my schooling.

I think you have forgotten 10 years of your schooling, especially those in which you learned of metaphors.

In case you need a reminder:

metaphor: a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.

Also, all those that focus in on the author stating C02 is an element and can't bother to read the rest completely missed the point. You are what's wrong with society. Don't troll. GO DO SOMETHING GOOD.
 
13321875:sampsihoyos said:
I think you have forgotten 10 years of your schooling, especially those in which you learned of metaphors.

In case you need a reminder:

metaphor: a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.

please elaborate how i missed a metaphor.
 
Back
Top