• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

According to Al Gore, shouldn't a dozen or so coastal cities be under water by now ?
 
CoorsLight said:
Actually less than 0.8%, but thanks for sharing the propaganda. It demonstrates the degree to which propagandists will push lies to get you to deny reality. It also shows how rare it is for people to check their "facts."
Click to expand...

:thumbup
 
CoorsLight said:
Actually less than 0.8%, but thanks for sharing the propaganda. It demonstrates the degree to which propagandists will push lies to get you to deny reality. It also shows how rare it is for people to check their "facts."
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. :laughing

I read the 30% statement and just shook my head. I figured I would wait until I got to work to look up what the actual value was. I would have guessed 1-2% at most. Sounds like even I was greatly overestimating the contribution of the fires.
 
nebulous said:
According to Al Gore, shouldn't a dozen or so coastal cities be under water by now ?
Click to expand...

If I showed you the facts that demonstrate dozens of cities in the US are now dealing with greatly-increased flooding, would that convince you? Or do the cities have to be actually underwater 100%?

I searched the transcript of "inconvenient truth" and couldn't find a single prediction of when there'd be enough sea-level rise to complete submerge 12 US cities.

But I don't think actual facts have any meaning for the majority of the people on this forum, not in the era of alternative facts.
 
teg916 said:
It is amazing so many of you took a sarcastic joke so seriously. If I was a troll this would be too easy, when in reality I am sad because rather than taking a joke for what it was everyone retreated to their partisan trenches and started slinging poo.

Fortests absorb carbon in the form of wood. When the trees rot, or burn the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. Hence the joke that if you cut down the forest and bury the trees you are storing carbon under ground instead of in the atmosphere. You are essentially putting coal back in the ground.



Cut down the forest, bury the trees. Obviously that is not a real solution. :facepalm
Click to expand...


For the most part, people reacted to the 30% figure, not to the obviously sarcastic solution.
 
teg916 said:
Science denial. Not just for evangelicals any more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/fo...-much-co2-as-half-of-all-fossil-fuels-burned/



Obviously that does not mean human contributions aren't an issue. But it does show that you are willing to deny facts that don't support your partisanship.
Click to expand...


From your own links, that you clearly did not read thoroughly:


"Large wildfires in the western United States can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in just a few weeks as cars do in those areas in an entire year, a new study suggests. "

"Overall, the study estimated that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning. "
 
teg916 said:
I read it. You do realize that the quote you posted, doesn't do anything to contradict the percentage of worldwide contribution to carbon emissions that come from wild fires right?
Click to expand...

It doesn't do anything to support you flippant remark either.
 
teg916 said:
I read it. You do realize that the quote you posted, doesn't do anything to contradict the percentage of worldwide contribution to carbon emissions that come from wild fires right?
Click to expand...

And where is your proof that percentage of worldwide contribution to carbon emissions that come from wild fires is much larger than fossil fuel burning? You are allowed your own opinions, but not your own facts :laughing
 
teg916 said:
I read it. You do realize that the quote you posted, doesn't do anything to contradict the percentage of worldwide contribution to carbon emissions that come from wild fires right?
Click to expand...

It wasn't intended to, it was simply to rebut your ridiculous 30% claim, which doesn't exist even in your own sources.

Not to mention that after a forest fire, new growth sequesters carbon at a far higher rate than old growth, so the contribution is only temporary.

Unlike, for example, burning coal, which doesn't grow back.
 
Last edited:
But, your sources say non-natural emissions at 8-10Gt... which is it?

"To put all this in perspective, total human emissions of carbon in a year is about 8 to 10 Gt."

You spout a spurious number, and are then shocked when you are called on your shit, and instead assume intent.

If you aren't saying that natural sources are so high that they make human sources less of an impact than they are, why exactly did you bring them into the discussion? And then waffle on about some Indonesian fire 20 years ago, and how Australia's total output is a drop in the figurative ocean compared to worldwide fires?

Forest fires have existed for millennia - including them is a zero-sum game. The earth has already been through those cycles innumerable times; they can be effectively discounted as a problem, regardless of the percentage carbon output compared to humans. So again, why bother mentioning them?
 
Not all of them Ian. Fairly solid evidence of a global fire that basically wiped out most of man. OK asteroid cause it. :p

Those pesky fires can be quite an issue.

You guys really need to argue about this stuff??
 
budman said:
Not all of them Ian. Fairly solid evidence of a global fire that basically wiped out most of man. OK asteroid cause it. :p

Those pesky fires can be quite an issue.

You guys really need to argue about this stuff??
Click to expand...

:rofl

Yeah, a massive super-volcano could wipe us out at any time, too. My point is just that, we can't control that shit, but that doesn't mean we should just give up on our contributions. Saying human contributions are bad while including comments about natural fire contributions is disingenuous at best, bordering on troll-like at worst...

All this dancing aside, fossil fuels are going to run out. Skip if it pollutes or not, the geopolitical BS that goes along with fossil fuels alone, is enough reason to try to get off them.

Besides, until someone comes up with an amazingly light supercapacitor, we should be keeping gasoline for God's intended purpose - lightweight sportsbikes!

Cars can lug heavy batteries; bikes cannot. We need to preserve what little fuel is left for fun machines - why waste it on the drone of commuting, or powering lights?
 
Now there's another fucking record-breaking weather event. But holy fuck, that's just part of the normal cycle.

How about the skies raining blood and frogs? Or giant locust swarms consuming all the corn in Iowa? Night turns into day? Talking horses? Would you guys believe the climate was changing then? Stubborn fuckers!
 
Gabe said:
Now there's another fucking record-breaking weather event. But holy fuck, that's just part of the normal cycle.

How about the skies raining blood and frogs? Or giant locust swarms consuming all the corn in Iowa? Night turns into day? Talking horses? Would you guys believe the climate was changing then? Stubborn fuckers!
Click to expand...

Since the Ice Age, the earth has continued to warm, presumably. :wow

But the public is expected to believe in computer models of doom and gloom that are constantly modified. This dubious modeling is backed up by dubious data collection that is also regularly massaged and "corrected" for error.:rofl

I'll pass.:rolleyes
 
mrmarklin said:
Since the Ice Age, the earth has continued to warm, presumably. :wow

But the public is expected to believe in computer models of doom and gloom that are constantly modified. This dubious modeling is backed up by dubious data collection that is also regularly massaged and "corrected" for error.:rofl

I'll pass.:rolleyes
Click to expand...

:wtf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top