RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8624
June 13th, 2015 at 5:51:48 AM permalink
Guide to figuring out if something is a hoax or not:

1) If it is posted on worldtruth.tv as being true....it is most likely a hoax.
2) If it is something that would be posted on worldtruth.tv [but isn't posted there [yet]]....it is most likely a hoax.
3) Check snopes.com

WorldTruth.tv is one of the worst websites ever. It is like the onion (fake news)....except the onion makes stuff up on purpose that's not true. WorldTruth uses stuff that is almost kind of real and spins it in a way that makes it seem legitimate.

It would do something like say "The best time to bet on 12 in craps is the very first roll, because the first time 12 is rolled is more likely to be on the first roll than the second." But they would fail to mention the fact that 12 is equally likely to be rolled on the first roll as the second as the 100'th roll. Using that logic, they would do some other spin-off math. And using that, they'd come up with something like "12 is the most likely roll of the dice"...and they'd have their "math" to back it up.

The onion would just post something ridiculous without any attempt at hiding their (obvious) lies.
bobsims
Joined: Apr 8, 2014
• Posts: 316
June 13th, 2015 at 6:57:14 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Well, based on the name-calling I must be winning the discussion. And yet more proof that liberals look at most things just in one dimension.

An inconvenient truth is that 97% of CO2 is generated by non-human sources!

Are you really expecting me to believe that a 3% difference is going to Cause gasoline to be \$9 and milk \$12.99/gal each by June 8, 2015?

If the Left (the ones pulling the levers like Soros brothers and the Clintons not the deluded brainwashed sheep like the ones here) really believed there own bullshit they would be calling for the immediate return to the horse and buggy pre-industrial days.
It's just another "issue" to cluck about like Chicken Little that "the sea's are rising and it's all the Republicans fault!"
Just like "voter suppression" in a country where it's never been easier to vote. We just had a national election and in a country with 320 million people the kleptocrats can't put one person on a stage whose vote was "suppressed". Meanwhile Canada and Mexico have truly strict voter ID laws and the left doesn't squeak about them. Guess Mexico is anti-Mexican.
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
• Posts: 1348
June 13th, 2015 at 10:09:12 AM permalink
Water is necessary for all life... let's add enough to raise sea levels by 80 meters (a piddling 3% increase!) and see what happens.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
bobsims
Joined: Apr 8, 2014
• Posts: 316
June 14th, 2015 at 7:55:02 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

Water is necessary for all life... let's add enough to raise sea levels by 80 meters (a piddling 3% increase!) and see what happens.

Well my parents have lived 3 miles from the Atlantic for 85 years and if you ask them if the ocean has come up even an inch in that time they will tell you to your face that you are f****** nuts.
harvson3
Joined: Jul 31, 2013
• Posts: 59
June 17th, 2015 at 9:44:28 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Well, based on the name-calling I must be winning the discussion. And yet more proof that liberals look at most things just in one dimension.

An inconvenient truth is that 97% of CO2 is generated by non-human sources!

How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).

Quote: bobsims

Well my parents have lived 3 miles from the Atlantic for 85 years and if you ask them if the ocean has come up even an inch in that time they will tell you to your face that you are f****** nuts.

Do your parents have a gauge, or are they just really good at measuring average sea level? Or are they just really good at calling people f(stars) nuts?

Scientists perhaps should consult your parents, or they could continue to consult instruments that take measurements:
Quote:

The tide gauge in Key West, in operation since 1913, has registered an increase of about seven-eighths of an inch every decade, for a 100-year increase of 8.8 inches.

Source: http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/rising-seas/ocean.html
HowMany
Joined: Mar 22, 2013
• Posts: 482
June 17th, 2015 at 11:24:38 AM permalink
Quote: harvson3

How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).

If all liberals committed suicide immediately, would it stop, or at least slow Global Warming? Oops, my bad, it's called Climate Change now.
harvson3
Joined: Jul 31, 2013
• Posts: 59
June 17th, 2015 at 1:05:15 PM permalink
That's a morbid joke rather than an actual argument. I'll note, however, that it was political strategist Frank Luntz who pushed Republicans to start using "climate change" in lieu of "global warming" in a famous 2002 memo titled "Straight Talk."

Actual quote from the memo:
`1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.'
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
• Posts: 3502
June 17th, 2015 at 1:18:53 PM permalink
Quote: harvson3

it was political strategist Frank Luntz who pushed Republicans to start using "climate change" in lieu of "global warming" in a famous 2002 memo titled "Straight Talk." http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/28/fox_news_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html

Slate, as usual, is lazy and incorrect. The scientists at the controlling agency, NASA, show that the scientists' usage predates Luntz by more than a quarter century, and those are the folks who think that they rule:

"What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
12.05.08
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible." NASA
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
• Posts: 13211
June 17th, 2015 at 2:52:54 PM permalink
Quote: harvson3

How is this 3% fact relevant to changes in the balance and concentration of atmospheric carbon? I agree that animals exhaling and dying releases carbon into the biosphere. Plants (and some fungi) also naturally absorb carbon. However, the ability of the Earth to absorb carbon hasn't increased, which means that human contributions - both through reducing absoprtion capabilities through deforestation and pollution, and through greater atmospheric release - have created an atmospheric surplus. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is at 403.24 ppm (last week).

It is relevant because it shows that we are talking about a minimal difference in CO2. The average low information voter is thinking that we have doubled, tripled, or worse to CO2. I am informed and when I heard this number, I had guessed 10% or so. 3% on an entire planet? That is a really small number. Who is to say that things are in such perfect balance that said 3% can't easily be processed?

Of course, if you bring this up and use your own mind to question what you are told you get the usual chant of "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!" from the believers.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012