« prev   random   next »

1
0

Twenty Years From Now...

By marcus following x   2018 Dec 12, 4:19am 1,203 views   24 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Twenty years from now, kids are gonna think "Baby it's cold outside" is really weird, and we're gonna have to explain that it has to be understood as a product of its time.


Because,.....
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Dec 12, 4:21am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

You see, it used to get cold outside
2   theoakman   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 12, 5:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Will we be producing less food because of this catastrophe?
3   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 12, 5:35am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ok Marcus, so in 20 years when Chicago winters are just bad as they are today will you admit you were wrong?

The environmental tyranists have set up a current worldview wherein any empirical evidence or lack thereof supports their view (warmer= global warming, colder = climate change). For once I'd like to set up an actual empirical experiment. Do you accept?
4   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Dec 12, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

First of all, it's a joke. I hope some reality based folks laughed.

Secondly, what ?

CBOEtrader says
current worldview wherein any empirical evidence or lack thereof supports their view (warmer= global warming, colder = climate change).


That's not what happened. IT really is global warming. The evidence being the trend in average land/air and ocean temperatures.

THe term climate change came into being becasue weather and climate is complex, and becasue isolated weather patterns don't tell the story, and becasue global warming causes climate change. That is,. more storms, unusual weather patterns etc.,. , and you know - CLIMATE CHANGE.

That complaint about global warming versus climate change is one of the lamest arguments from the right wing deniers.
5   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Dec 12, 6:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Ok Marcus, so in 20 years when Chicago winters are just bad as they are today will you admit you were wrong?


Maybe some haven't heard the story that supposedly some left wingers or I don't know, #metoo activist types took issue with that song as sounding a little "rapey."

Again, this thread is meant mostly as a joke about that. But I was a kid in the 1960s and winters were far colder then than they were for the last couple decades.
6   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 12, 7:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

THe term climate change came into being becasue weather and climate is complex,

No, they renamed global warming climate change because the hockey sticking of multiple degree temperature rise should be in its second decade but instead the temp has been steady and has actually been falling for a couple of years. Thus the eminent danger of global warming flooding has transformed into the long term crisis of climate change.

Do you think Michael Mann will ever release his hockey stick data?
7   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 12, 7:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Maybe some haven't heard the story that supposedly some left wingers or I don't know, #metoo activist types took issue with that song as sounding a little "rapey."


Yes I know.

Theres a joke in there somewhere, but taking it to the guaranteed extreme global warming conclusion isnt funny. It's just not realistic enough to have comedic value, sorry
8   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 12, 7:49am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

That complaint about global warming versus climate change is one of the lamest arguments from the right wing deniers.


Requiring empirical evidence is lame? Yeah...perhaps you should look in the mirror before calling others science deniers.
10   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Dec 12, 10:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Requiring empirical evidence is lame?


No trying to mimick Rush Limbaugh or some other talk radio moron with a straw man reason of why the phrase "climate change" came in to being, is lame.

I'm not sure what it indicates more. The lack of legit arguments the deniers have ? Or just their outright gullibility and stupidity.
11   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Dec 12, 10:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
This OP is more retarded than usual for the poster.


Another triggered right winger.

You must know that eventually you'll probably have to admit you were stubbornly buying in to Koch brothers propaganda for all those years.
12   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 12, 10:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Because left is always offended by everything.
13   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 13, 5:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
No trying to mimick Rush Limbaugh or some other talk radio moron with a straw man reason of why the phrase "climate change" came in to being, is lame.


*trying to mimic* implies you are psychic and can read my mind.

^^this is ofc stupid and proof that @Marcus 's brain has been effectively washed. @Marcus you are literally word associating in the most childish way. "Rush uses the phrase 'climate change' so anyone using that term must be copying Rush."

I've never listened to Rush. Not once. Ever.

So yet again, we are at empirical evidence. I think evidence is important. You choose to believe what you are told and attack those who disagree w emotions rather than facts.

^^brainwashed mind in action
14   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 13, 5:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
You must know that eventually you'll probably have to admit you were stubbornly buying in to Koch brothers propaganda for all those years.


Ok here we are again.

Under what specific circumstances would any of us prove global warming? What is the empirical observation leading to that proof?
15   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 13, 6:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Patrick - I still think my idea on banning climate change posts is a good idea. We're not going to start on fire or freeze to death in our lifetime. Tech is getting better and we seem to be getting more efficient and less polluting. Until people face the reality that MORE people is ultimately the problem, there's not a solution to all these posts. Give your keyboards a rest on this shit. There's only one solution and no one wants to take that route (there are many actually, but all involve death and people not increasing population). Enjoy life. Stop bitching about an unsolvable problem.
16   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 13, 6:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
@Patrick - I still think my idea on banning climate change posts is a good idea.

Why are you against free speech?

WookieMan says
We're not going to start on fire or freeze to death in our lifetime.

That's not what Guy and other alarmists say
.WookieMan says
Until people face the reality that MORE people is ultimately the problem

Said Malthus 200 years ago.
WookieMan says
Enjoy life. Stop bitching about an unsolvable problem

Make patnet safe for transgender breastfeeding!
17   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 13, 6:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
WookieMan says
@Patrick - I still think my idea on banning climate change posts is a good idea.

Why are you against free speech?


Lol, I'm not. I'm against insanity and arguing the same thing over and over. You're free to do what you want, it just looks stupid frankly.

Onvacation says
That's not what Guy and other alarmists say.


I don't know or care who that is. Could be the most educated, smartest person on the planet, but it doesn't matter what they say. People matter, specifically the numbers of them.

Onvacation says
Said Malthus 200 years ago


I figured that would get brought up. My point isn't a food or space argument. Climate change is essentially about CO2, pollution, etc. Anyone want to argue adding more people will create LESS CO2 or pollution? That is my point. Climate change or global warming conversations are dead on arrival, so why waste the time on either side?
18   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 13, 7:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
I still think my idea on banning climate change posts is a good idea.


I agree that it's basically a waste of time to debate global warming, but don't want to restrict any topic, especially after making the tagline of the site "Discuss Anything".

I could create regular expression filters so that each user could filter out comments with strings that match. Seem worth doing?
19   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 13, 7:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
WookieMan says
I still think my idea on banning climate change posts is a good idea.


I agree that it's basically a waste of time to debate global warming, but don't want to restrict any topic, especially after making the tagline of the site "Discuss Anything".

I could create regular expression filters so that each user could filter out comments with strings that match. Seem worth doing?


I was mostly being sarcastic. I can obviously just avoid the posts, I'm an adult after all. Love you all here, but shit, no one has changed anyone's mind on this topic and you're not going to. All the while there is a solution staring everyone in the face. I guess some people just like to argue over nothing.
20   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Dec 13, 10:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Ok Marcus, so in 20 years when Chicago winters are just bad as they are today will you admit you were wrong?

Based on the mountains of global warming evidence that accumulated in the past 20 yrs, will you admit that you are wrong?

Of course a 2degrees change in climate will not do much when it's -20 outside. No one said it would.

CBOEtrader says
Requiring empirical evidence is lame?


You're bent on ignoring the evidence, so why require it?
21   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (4)   2018 Dec 13, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
You see, it used to get cold outside


Oh, look: marcus made a funny!
22   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Dec 13, 11:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What will be fun is to see who's correct?
Knowing takes all the fun out of near term human extinction.

What's all this talk about evidence?
Someone forget what site they are on?
23   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2018 Dec 13, 12:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Based on the mountains of global warming evidence that accumulated in the past 20 yrs, will you admit that you are wrong?


Wrong? About what exactly?

I am asking for standards by which we can measure extreme climate change predictions. We know al Gore's predictions are nonsense. He was/is wrong. Who/what/where are the predictions? The scary reasons we need our global elite siphoning money from our economies for discretionary funds to rescue us from ourselves.


If these standards and predictive models exist provide the links
24   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Dec 13, 12:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
About what exactly?

About the temperature going up.

CBOEtrader says
I am asking for standards by which we can measure extreme climate change predictions.

When you see the temp going up (empirically verified), and you see why (empirically verified), and you know that will continue (unless? What? a miracle?), who cares about exact predictions?
It becomes an exercise in common sense projection.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions