Dorénaz Downhill Track with Shaperideshoot - Video

30 5

trimakas (Feb 24, 2017 at 6:26)

And we've got a president that doesn't acknowledge climate change... But those were some dope tracks!

11 12

RedBurn (Feb 24, 2017 at 9:05)

just a hot winter... already happened in the past

9 33

employee7 (Feb 24, 2017 at 9:07) (Below Threshold)

I believe your president doesn't acknowledge that humans are the undisputed cause of the slight warming that has been observed. A view he shares with almost every climatologist.

21 3

corvus1 (Feb 24, 2017 at 9:25)

@employee7: Sorry dude, but check your facts: 97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming. There have been multiple studies and surveys on this topic. If you want a host of links start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

17 2

jayacheess FL (Feb 24, 2017 at 9:48)

@employee7: Are you f*cking serious? Please find your way off our planet.

6 10

RedBurn (Feb 24, 2017 at 10:33) (Below Threshold)

@corvus1: if you wanna bring real info dont go on wikipedia ....... its the best example of the system itself! Speaking generally not specially about climate

11 3

corvus1 (Feb 24, 2017 at 10:55)

@RedBurn: I know and agree that Wikipedia is not ultimately the best "source" of data to site. I linked that particular page because 1) employee7 clearly does not have an accurate understanding of the state of consensus in this field, and 2) it links out to MANY different peer reviewed articles which are the best source for primary data on this topic. These include original research articles and articles which compile the results of several research studies.

As far as Wikipedia being part of "the system itself!" I have no idea what you mean or why it requires such excitement (!) but I'm guessing I should just leave that topic alone.

5 18

cunning-linguist (Feb 24, 2017 at 10:56) (Below Threshold)

@RedBurn: mate I'm with you, anyone how just doesn't simply look at what's gone before it a retard. I call climate change style taxes, retard tax. We've had ice ages for lords sake, imagine that in this day and age?! The world has changed massively since way before we were on it, the forces of the planet and the universe itself are slightly more than ours. I'm not totally blind in that I acknowledge we a may well be contributing to it all, but if we existed or not, it's still be happening. To thing we can make any noticeable difference back the other way is utterly ludicrous.

3 1

DrJean (Feb 24, 2017 at 11:29)

@RedBurn: Just listen to the paleo-climatologists: www.pinkbike.com/video/465049

1 0

jayacheess FL (Feb 24, 2017 at 12:59)

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Some youtube info for anyone interested in learning more about climate science the debate surrounding it.

2 8

employee7 (Feb 24, 2017 at 13:01) (Below Threshold)

@corvus1: Here's some comments from a few of the 97%. Apparently they didn't agree that their articles support anthropogenic global warming as the main cause of climate change.
www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

9 0

corvus1 (Feb 24, 2017 at 13:28)

@employee7: So you have a blog post from "Popular Technology" written by an unstated author who cherry picks a small percentage of the 1200 respondents and you assume this blog post is more valid? The technique is called Cherry Picking. I give you a few outspoken skeptics and you assume they speak for the overwhelming majority. Sorry. Try again. The Cook paper may not be perfect, I'll grant you that, but do a bit of real research and you'll find the climate scientists (scientists, not bloggers) are in agreement that climate change is real, and that humans play a significant role.

12 0

jayacheess FL (Feb 24, 2017 at 13:49)

@employee7: Dude, the first scientist that 'article' referred to works for an organization partially funded by ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy - a coal mining conglomerate. It took me two seconds to find this out via google.

Edit: here, have a look at what legitimate information looks like: www.un.org/climatechange/the-science

2 0

thedriftisreal (Feb 24, 2017 at 14:58)

oh so I guess Sweden is corrupt now. well then

9 0

bridgermurray (Feb 24, 2017 at 16:52)

Hate political arguments on PB but I'd just like to jump in and say that if you don't believe the 97% of climate scientists, than you should at least believe the D.O.D, NASA, or the US navy who is currently altering their ships to deal with warmer water and higher seas and are planning evacuations for cities that will be submerged

.

1 5

cunning-linguist (Feb 25, 2017 at 1:08) (Below Threshold)

@bridgermurray: I think you've missed my point. I'm not ignoring it, nor am I saying it's not happening. I just think we have less influence than we are led to believe.

I work on the premise of, everyone is a salesman of sorts. The scientists sell a service to the government. If they can "prove" usefulness by way of tangible evidence the government can use to raise taxes etc. It's a win for both parties. Selling keeps them in a job. I can only base my understanding on the climate change the planet has seen before. Which has been far more dramatic than we've seen of late. We don't always have to believe in everything we read on Wikipedia or the books for example. People are capable of generating their own thought patterns.

5 0

bridgermurray (Feb 25, 2017 at 9:55)

@cunning-linguist: I would agree with you if global warming was a theory, or a philosophy- But it's not. It is a scientific phenomenon currently happening that is proven by an extensive amount of facts. Scientists don't "sell" these facts or exaggerate them the same way they don't "sell" formulas to purify water or "sell" high-pressure physics for rockets going into space. They provide the facts to people with political power, and allow them to do determine what course of action we should take. Unfortunately for us, there are people who still somehow think that it is perfectly ok to "disagree" with fact and truth. Until these people conduct their own studies proving climate change isn't real or is being exaggerated, than you really have no business debating it with the people who went to college for 12 years, have 200 million dollar equipment and have spent 30 years studying it then, do you? That's my take.

4 0

jayacheess FL (Feb 25, 2017 at 10:09)

@cunning-linguist: It's been 100+ million years since atmospheric CO2 levels were this high. The planet was a very different place then as it was more tectonically active. It is a 100% certainty that this extra CO2 is from human activity, and it is also well established that CO2 traps heat.

There's a good reason why most climate scientists are on board with this. And unless you're an expert in this field, your 'feelings' about this subject aren't really relevant. In the same way you would defer to a doctor or an engineer on medicine or engineering, you should be deferring to climate scientists on matters of climate science.

Also, keep in mind that the fossil fuels industry, given it's much greater size and power compared to the climate and green energy industries, has a much stronger voice than they should otherwise have in trying to debunk climate science. The fact that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are still on board with anthropogenic climate change, despite the massive money coming from the fossil fuels industry to discredit it, should tell you something.

Also, here's a cute little comic with real temperature information from the last 20,000 years on it to give you a visual idea of what's happening: xkcd.com/1732