The left denies science/biology or man can't influence climate change

???


  • Total voters
    9
No.

That's exactly what it means in scientific context.

You are confusing the word theory for hypothesis.
No, a theory is something that has been observed to be true and tested to be true. A hypothesis is something that has been observed to be true and is given an "educated guess".
 
No, a theory is something that has been observed to be true and tested to be true. A hypothesis is something that has been observed to be true and is given an "educated guess".

Right.

Why do you think a hypothesis precedes a theory?
 
Right.

Why do you think a hypothesis precedes a theory?
Theories are built on hypotheses. A theory is several magnitudes of "true". A hypothesis is "true". We observe that as carbon builds in the atmosphere and temperatures rise, violent storms and hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Is there any other science I discussed with the retard that you would like to bring up or do you just want to play word games in hopes of a win?

Is there an ominous threat of "global cooling"?
{<jordan}
Does it matter if we burn the entire world's fuel reserves now or over several hundred years?
{<doc}
 
Anthropogenic climate change is a non-issue for the most part.

First of all, oil/fossil fuel reserves will run out in the next century or two, not enough to do much permanent damage to our planet. Also, assuming fossil fuels/oil is a limited resource, does the rate of expenditure of these resources really matter? I.e., if we burn all of it in 30 years vs 300 years vs 3000 years, would the net global temperature increase be affected?

Secondly, global cooling will kill off way more people. We are at a peak in the Earth's temperature cycle, i.e. this is about as hot as the planet will ever get (just looking at historical temperature cycles data). Once things start going cooling down, way more of the population will be killed off. Food will be scarcer, we wont have any coal left to provide heat, people will have to aggregate to the few hot spots around the world and there will be massive starvation, overpopulation of certain areas, etc. So global warming is actually going to save a lot more lives than it costs, because it will offset the global cooling that will literally ruin most of the world (-10C global temperature). There is a reason why the more overpopulated countries in the world are mostly hot, while the most underpopulated countries are mostly cold.

Hurricanes could be an issue, but the science is still out on whether their intensity is directly caused by global warming.

Sea levels are whatever, there is plenty of land for humans to live on, and as the earth gets warmer then places in Canada, Russia, Northern Europe etc. become more livable. I.e. we will actually get more usable land (with ability to mine them for resources) than we would lose from the sea levels rising (which is mostly land that is already tapped out resource wise).

Lastly, more CO2 is actually good in some cases, because as we cut down massive amounts of forests we will need more CO2 to promote healthy vegetation.

The real issue is that we will run out of fossil fuels/gas/oil, which will render us completely fucked for the next Ice Age where we wont have enough energy for heating.

So much sciencey type words yet so little understanding.

I don't even know which to refute first.

How about i list all the completely debunked aspects and you can pick one for me to focus on.

1. Not enough fossil fuels to do damage.

2. 30 vs 3000 years.

3. Warming better for people.

4. We can't mine cold places.

5. More CO2 is good.

6. We need fossil fuels for heating.
 
Theories are built on hypotheses. A theory is several magnitudes of "true". A hypothesis is "true". We observe that as carbon builds in the atmosphere and temperatures rise, violent storms and hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Is there any other science I discussed with the retard that you would like to bring up or do you just want to play word games in hopes of a win?

Is there an ominous threat of "global cooling"?
{<jordan}
Does it matter if we burn the entire world's fuel reserves now or over several hundred years?
{<doc}

I'm not playing any word games, I'm not making any claims about global warming.

I saw you call him a retard for providing the correct definition of hypothesis.
 
I'm not playing any word games, I'm not making any claims about global warming.

I saw you call him a retard for providing the correct definition of hypothesis.
No, he didn't, as we just discussed. A hypothesis is something that has been observed to be true and formulating an estimate using science as to why. A hypothesis isn't just a "guess".
 
So much sciencey type words yet so little understanding.

I don't even know which to refute first.

How about i list all the completely debunked aspects and you can pick one for me to focus on.

1. Not enough fossil fuels to do damage.

2. 30 vs 3000 years.

3. Warming better for people.

4. We can't mine cold places.

5. More CO2 is good.

6. We need fossil fuels for heating.
How about you choose whatever you want to dispute.
 
No, he didn't, as we just discussed. A hypothesis is something that has been observed to be true and formulating an estimate using science as to why. A hypothesis isn't just a "guess".

He didn't say it was.

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Fits perfectly fine in a scientific context.

Hence why you either reject or accept a hypothesis based on the experiment you design to test it. And eventually maybe build a theory on it.
 
How about you choose whatever you want to dispute.
Right, as if he'll actually consider evidence and update your positions.

"GLOBAL COOLING IS COMING!"
"Who cares about the sea level rising?!?!"
BasicPaleGavial-small.gif
 
Collins: “If you take the CBO’s formula and apply it, just four-tenths of one percent increase in the GDP generates revenues of a trillion dollars. ... So I think if we can stimulate the economy, create more jobs, that does generate more revenue.”

She is correct. She certainly did not say "tax cuts pay for themselves". Dynamic scoring is the CBO standard.

She certainly did. First quote in this part of the transcript:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS:

Economic growth produces more revenue and that will help to offset this tax cut and actually lower the debt.

CHUCK TODD:

Where’s the evidence? Where, explain to me. Find a, find a study that actually says what you’re claiming.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS:

Let me--

CHUCK TODD:

It doesn’t exist.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS:

Let me do that. First of all if you take the C.B.O.’s formula and apply it four to four tenths of one percent increase in the GDP generates revenues of a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars. Even the joint committee on taxation has projected that the tax bill would stimulate the economy to produce hundreds of billions of additional revenue. I’ve talked four economists, including the Dean of the Columbia School of Business and former chairs of the councils of economic advisors and they believe that it will have this impact. So I think if we can stimulate the economy, create more jobs that that does generate more revenue.

CHUCK TODD:

But why isn't there a single study? I'm going to show you three studies that we have, sort of a liberal one, a centrist one, and a conservative one right up there. The most conservative one, the most pro-economic growth argument, still adds $516 billion to the deficit over ten years.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS:Well, talk to economists like Glenn Hubbard and Larry Lindsey and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who used to be head of the C.B.O. And they will tell you otherwise. So I think you will find that economists just don't agree on this.
 
She certainly did. First quote in this part of the transcript:
Economic growth produces more revenue (true) and that will help to offset this tax cut (true) and actually lower the debt (false*).

*it will lower the debt relative to a static scoring, but not in absolute terms.

It's disturbing to me that you would focus on that short, on-air statement when her followup statement clarifies what she meant.
 
How about you choose whatever you want to dispute.

I'll go with with can't mine cold places for $200 thanks. (I choose it because it whacky and unheard of).

You said,
"As the earth gets warmer then places in Canada, Russia, Northern Europe etc. become more livable. I.e. we will actually get more usable land (with ability to mine them for resources)".

Canada, Russia, Norway, Alsaka are some of the coldest places on earth and yet each have their economies largely driven by resource mining.
 
Economic growth produces more revenue (true) and that will help to offset this tax cut (true) and actually lower the debt (false*).

*it will lower the debt relative to a static scoring, but not in absolute terms.

It's disturbing to me that you would focus on that short, on-air statement when her followup statement clarifies what she meant.

Economic growth produces more revenue than not having economic growth is true. The claim that the cuts will cause economic growth should be rated as questionable, and the claim that it will lower the debt is nutty. I'm not getting how you can read the discussion and not think that she's asserting that the cuts will pay for themselves. Todd notes that even the most optimistic study (unrealistically optimistic, at that) shows that it adds $500B to debt, and she disagrees with him (note that the economists she cites there disavow her claims).
 
I'll go with with can't mine cold places for $200 thanks. (I choose it because it whacky and unheard of).

You said,
"As the earth gets warmer then places in Canada, Russia, Northern Europe etc. become more livable. I.e. we will actually get more usable land (with ability to mine them for resources)".

Canada, Russia, Norway, Alsaka are some of the coldest places on earth and yet each have their economies largely driven by resource mining.
Yeah, but there is very little mining north of certain points. Places where it simply becomes too difficult and too dangerous to trek.

There is a reason Antarctica is largely unexplored.
 
I'll go with with can't mine cold places for $200 thanks. (I choose it because it whacky and unheard of).

You said,
"As the earth gets warmer then places in Canada, Russia, Northern Europe etc. become more livable. I.e. we will actually get more usable land (with ability to mine them for resources)".

Canada, Russia, Norway, Alsaka are some of the coldest places on earth and yet each have their economies largely driven by resource mining.
That dudes points are just bizarre. It's hard to believe he's not trolling.

"It needs to be warm so we can mine"
....wot?
"Sea level rise doesn't matter"
<{katwhu}>
 
In a perfect world climate change denial would be met with a 12-15 year prison sentence (first offense, no parole possible).

Need to weed out bad ideas such as this quickly and efficiently. What a beautiful state of affairs that would make for.
 
Yeah, but there is very little mining north of certain points. Places where it simply becomes too difficult and too dangerous to trek.

There is a reason Antarctica is largely unexplored.

Large Arctic mines include Red Dog mine (zinc) in Alaska, Diavik Diamond Mine in Northwest Territories, Canada, and Sveagruva in Svalbard. Large mines under development are Baffinland Iron Mine in Nunavut, and Isua Iron Mine in Greenland.

Gold mining in Alaska is widespread. Fort Knox Gold Mine is the largest producer of gold in the history of Alaska.

There are also very few mines undersea. We get oil and gas yes but anything that comes in a solid state is very very rare.

It seems clear that being underwater is a larger impediment than cold.
Seeing vastly more land is lost to highly difficult water covering than is gained from significantly less difficult cold its a clear net loss.
 
Everybody denies science when it's convenient.

The American right has been a joke for years, with its religious, anti-intellectual pandering, but this could change over the years.

From the looks of it, a new generation of American conservatives is rising. Some things still need to be ironed out, a bunch of inconsistencies, logical fallacies, etc. due to the money interests involved with the conservative representative (Republicans), but once that's handled, the game will be changed. It's going to get increasingly difficult for a man of the left, to defend their increasingly whacky and radical platform, compared to that of the new conservative, who will become the defender of science, liberty and practicality.
 
Last edited:
In a perfect world climate change denial would be met with a 12-15 year prison sentence (first offense, no parole possible).

Need to weed out bad ideas such as this quickly and efficiently. What a beautiful state of affairs that would make for.

Worked for Hitler and Stalin.
 
Large Arctic mines include Red Dog mine (zinc) in Alaska, Diavik Diamond Mine in Northwest Territories, Canada, and Sveagruva in Svalbard. Large mines under development are Baffinland Iron Mine in Nunavut, and Isua Iron Mine in Greenland.

Gold mining in Alaska is widespread. Fort Knox Gold Mine is the largest producer of gold in the history of Alaska.

There are also very few mines undersea. We get oil and gas yes but anything that comes in a solid state is very very rare.

It seems clear that being underwater is a larger impediment than cold.
Seeing vastly more land is lost to highly difficult water covering than is gained from significantly less difficult cold its a clear net loss.
A couple of mines doesn't mean much, there are plenty of deep sea mines too, many of which are actually used for other minerals than oil and gas such as copper, gold, silver, etc. Also the small amoutn of land we lose to sea levels is land that we've already mined out for the most part.

Are you really denying that very cold weather conditions impedes resource collection, land arability and the ability for humans to live there?
 
Back
Top