You're supposed to leave your doors unlocked in northernmost Alaska to help save people being chased by polar bears.
@Tentastic, I would think that a motivated polar bear wouldn’t be slowed down much by the average car door.
@I Are Lebo, Polar bears are an Apex predator of the Arctic and are used to immediately being able to kill and eat their prey once they are close enough.
Due to this, they literally have a tiny attention span and almost immediately give up if there is some inconvenience in getting to their food.
Also they have terrible eyesight and hunt by almost entirely by smell, so once you get in the car they have no clue where you are.
Also they don't know how strong they are compared to cars.
@Tentastic, I guess that makes sense
I didn’t say I didn’t believe in it, Mr. Bear.
I just said me paying the corrupt political elite more of my money won’t make it better and will definitely make me worse.
First it was the planet is cooling too fast and they called it global cooling. Then they changed to it is heating up too fast and called it global warming. Now they just call it climate change because the 2 previous lies were disproven too easily based on what they were calling it. I’m sure I’ll trigger some eco-nut but that won’t change that giant leak back during Obama’s presidency proving all those climate scientists were lying and fabricating their data now will it.
@ThatGuyx79, its almost as if as scientists learn more they change what they hypothesize and study. Crazy talk!
@ThatGuyx79, you just blow in from stupid town?
@I Are Lebo, with a quick stop off in crazyville.
@ThatGuyx79, good LORD, you are one sad little idiot.
@ThatGuyx79, don't know why you're getting downvoted. It's true. Back in the 70s/80s scientists were saying the Earth was going to freeze over in 10 years...
And the email leaks talking about manipulating data were shown to be legitimate as well.
@RogueKnight, he’s getting downvoted because he isn’t calling out governmental ineptitude, he’s calling out an insane government conspiracy theory on par with anti vaxxers and flat earthers.
The terminology has changed as the understanding of the science has evolved. One cannot look at the trends of natural disasters over the last five decades, as well as the corresponding rise in carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses and not see the correlation. Not without being willfully stupid, anyway.
@I Are Lebo, and yet when scientists have predicted horrible natural disaster seasons within the last decade (hurricanes in the US for example), they were completely wrong and they were some of the weakest seasons.
At this point, I simply don't think we know enough or have been studying it enough. A couple of decades of solid data, that is accurate enough that we don't have to go back and adjust, is not enough to study systems which have existed for millenia and have decades long cycles.
Call me willfully stupid if you want, but statistics and data are manipulated too often to trust. Is the weather changing? Absolutely. But the Earth goes through cycles we don't fully understand and our scientists are just guessing based on observations.
@RogueKnight, you're right. You ARE willfully stupid.
@ThePandaPool , No. I see the possibility, and the corresponding changes and acknowledge that there may be some relation. But there is nothing that shows, with any level of proof, that those trends are truly related. It's subjective. And considering the agencies who bring these theories about ave already shown they are not above manipulating data and lying, they are not a trustworthy source.
I'm skeptical. If it were true, why would there be a need to lie about it? But more research needs to be done to show how the correlations are related. Science has confused the cause and the effect many times on human history.
@RogueKnight, How many times over the last 10 years has the USA been hit by “the worst hurricane in history”? I’ll give you a hint, it’s more than once. Your argument is like pointing at an unreliable newscaster and saying “weather forecasts aren’t real, they’re just making it up and hoping they’re right”.
Scientists are constantly updating the current model as more information is obtained. You don’t need millennia of recorded data in order to identify trends and foresee risks. This isn’t someone standing by the side of the road with a sign that reads “The End Is Near!”, this is entire organizations worth of data showing the metaphorical iceberg dead ahead.
@RogueKnight, you’re not willfully stupid, what you are is ignorant of the science and confusing the actual issue.
Any field of science is going to have margins for error, as well as outspoken members who happen to be fücking morons (or ideologically motivated).
When Al Gore predicted that Florida would be underwater by 2020, it wasn’t because the oceans aren’t rising, it was because Al Gore is a moron that uses straight extrapolation and uses sensationalist reporting for attention.
Yes, there are a lot of untrustworthy sources of information out there, but you are confusing the media with the scientists. The media (and the activists) are the ones going on national television and ranting about the point of no return. The scientists are the ones who keep pointing out new records for all types of natural disasters and pointing out how the current trend is far more than it should be when considering the historical record.
You’re not being a skeptic. Rejecting the official story out of
hand isn’t skepticism. It’s wholesale rejection of science.
Though to be fair, it doesn’t really make a difference. Whether you’re rejecting that climate change is real (in which case you’re wrong), or whether you’re rejecting that humanity is contributing towards climate change (in which case you’re still wrong), it doesn’t really matter.
The reason why most of the public scientific community, especially the activists like Greta Thunberg, are fücking morons and why you find them hard to trust (in which case you are definitely NOT wrong) is because their hands are tied when it comes to actually addressing the issue.
If every single person in the USA went zero emission tomorrow and kept it that way, it wouldn’t do jack shït towards stopping or reversing climate change. Not when Bezos can just dump a trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere for a weekend in orbit whenever he wants, and not when China and India pump out quadrillions of tons of waste into the air every year.
@I Are Lebo, recent study promoted the idea that decomposing wood generates 1.15 more emissions than the entire fuel industry. Almost like moving to a digital society and making certain areas paperless was worse for the environment.
@RogueKnight, Lebo covered most of it but also those cycles you mentioned, yes they are real but they are faster now. More extreme weather are real but extreme can mean much more than the worst.
@MrLogg, the cycles are occuring faster now than they have since we were actually documenting them. Less than 100 years. That's hardly enough to make a statement of fact with certainty.
@RogueKnight, if you think we have only been paying attention to the temperature of the planet for less than 100 years, you are wholly ignorant of climatology and need to do some research, because you are forming uneducated opinions about something you do not understand.
That would be every bit as ignorant as saying that vaccines aren’t safe because we have been studying them for less than 100 years.
@Mag3rPayne, that’s nonsense. Cite your source.
@I Are Lebo, here you go, https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/deadwood-releasing-10.9-gigatons-of-carbon-every-year
@Mag3rPayne, that you’ve linked to a website that requires a registration makes me suspicious
Edit: my bad, I put the name in wrong. Reading the article now….
I’m not clear on what side of the argument you’re supporting, but I think this last line of that article is important:
“This study has demonstrated that both climate change and the loss of insects have the potential to alter the decomposition of wood, and therefore, carbon and nutrient cycles worldwide.”
@I Are Lebo, look it up on the search engine of your own preference, he goes into say that the smaller bug populations are partly the cause for decomposing wood not being adequately processed.
@I Are Lebo, if you want clean energy, you have to get dirty. Most solar and wind products are manufactured in China, manufacturing causes pollutants and the rest of the world is happy to ignore those facts to feel like pompous asshats with low emissions, even though it's just an illusion.
@Mag3rPayne, that I can get behind. It’s true, those in positions to obtain power cleanly tend to hoard it rather than share it, only to turn around and virtue signal at those in positions to not be able to do better without it being at the expense of the planet.
@I Are Lebo, I have said before that climate change is real, what I detest is the alarmism and presumption that the world is going to end from it. A lot of the proponents sounding the alarms are profiting either through investments or contracts. NOAA loves to sound the alarm because it gives them more attention and funding.
@Mag3rPayne, to be fair, even in the worst case models, climate change isn’t going to destroy the world. It might kill off humanity, but the earth will keep spinning.
Personally, I think the likely scenario is that as the world slowly becomes more and more hostile to us, we will gradually adapt our homes and cities around it, leading us into fully sealed habitats that would be the predecessor to how we would live in space and on colonies.
@ThatGuyx79, if you could just die that’d be great. We don’t need any more idiots polluting the world with their worthless conspiracy theories. We have far too many stupid people already.
@ThatGuyx79, you know what it tells me when you downvote all of my comments without responding to any of them? It tells me you’re a coward without an actual argument.
@I Are Lebo, says the person who’s first response was ad hominem. Seriously, why would I waste my time debating someone who spent more time attacking my character than they did the substance of my argument. But since you are so intent of making a fool of yourself, I will leave you with several examples of how the current narrative on climate change being nothing but BS:
1. August 2013, National Geographic had an article quoting the experts about the low lake levels for the Great Lakes and how it was because of human induced climate change. There is even a USA Today article that makes basically the same claims by John Flesher published Feb 6, 2013. Then came 2019 when the lake levels rose 9 inches above its long-term average. The Chicago Tribune had an article about by Tony Brisco.
2. In Oct. 2018 the UN IPCC admitted that not only is there little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing, but that greenhouse gases have barely any effect on creating them. (1/2)
@ThatGuyx79, One only has to look up the analysis done by Roger Pielke Jr. on the report. You can even find his tweets on it.
3. Nature Geoscience reports in early 2019 that the Jakobshavn glacier was not only no longer shrinking but was actually expanding. The so-called experts had been ranting every now and again about how climate change was the cause of its rapid shrinking since 2012.
4. Glacier National Park had to change its signs claiming the glaciers would all be melted by 2020. The US Geological Survey had made that prediction more than a decade earlier.
5. As a bonus here is a link of a compilation of 50 years of predictions that all failed to materialize: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
So yes, I will keep downvoting you and your feeling-based arguments. Not because I am a coward but because your arguments lack any substance. PS, facts don’t care about your feelings. (2/2)
@ThatGuyx79, the idea that you think that listing a half dozen instances where individual people got predictions wrong in any way makes your argument shows your massive ignorance on the topic of climatology.
It has nothing to do with feelings, and your assertion that it does shows you didn’t even read my comments.