Non Trump Supporters

Tbh, not sure you know exactly what global warming is.

 

Nothing I wasn’t being serious with that post. My bad tbh I always forget how many new people are here that have no idea how much of a staunch Trump supporter I am and they don’t detect my trolling like the old members do

 

Oh yeah heh heh. Try pasting the sarcastic parts in italics then. Works every time I do it.

 

Wow, no rebuttal of any specific information in the video? That's not much of an argument bud! Get some real sources!

 

ok https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

the link really covers everything, but i will give you specific counterpoints from that and other sources in context with what the video says, since i am very nice.
everything he says in the beginning of the video about their being three groups, etc. is mostly factual, however he neglects to mention that group 2 makes up ~3 percent of climate scientists, vs 97% who fall into group 1 [source]
this gets us to the meat of the video: what the two groups agree on. i will respond to each of these individually to make sure i miss nothing

• "the climate is always changing" - a true statement, but presented in a way that leads you to draw the false conclusion that "the climate is always changing in a way that is similar to the way it is changing now". the climate has always changed, yes, but we are currently experiencing an unprecedented rise in co2 levels and global temperature, as seen in this handy chart [source: this climate denier guy's post, lol]

now take a look at this chart and note the extreme rise we've been experiencing since the industrial revolution and large scale human burning of fossil fuels [sourced from my original link]. so yes, the climate is always changing, but in generally predictable patterns... that we are massively deviating from ever since humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale (aka climate change).

now, you might look at this and say, "well, octo, it could just be a massive coincidence, an instance of spurious correlation! what makes you think that co2 would directly influence the temperature?" well, you're in luck. the second thing that the video notes both groups agree on is...

• "CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming." - this is a funny statement because it leads with the idea that human life is not possible without co2 to get you to think that it can't be extremely harmful in too high a quantity. for a similar statement, consider "consumption of water is necessary for human life, but being completely immersed in it can lead to some trouble breathing" - yes, water is necessary for human life, but that doesn't mean you can't drown in it. not really too much to address or refute here beyond that, let's move on to the next point.
  
• "Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century." - this is factual and i have nothing to say about it, but on it's own it isn't an argument for or against climate change. i think it's just a lead in to point number 4, which is
• "Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role." - here is a graph showing temperature increase over that timespan [source]

what you will notice is that there isn't all that much of an increase at all prior to the 1960s (aside from a spike interestingly correlated with ww2, one of the biggest booms in production, and thus co2 emissions, in history), and that after the 1960s, it takes off, increasing at a rapid pace relative to any prior increase. so yes, man's greenhouse emissions probably didn't have a huge effect prior to the 1960s, but they seem to be having a clear and obvious effect from then onward. (addendum: you may think to respond "what difference can one degree celcius make?", in which case you may want to read this) anyway, on to the final point

• 'Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”' - so i was curious about this claim and decided to check out some ipcc reports (interestingly enough i couldn't find that quote in the 2007 report, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a paraphrase). what it comes down to is this: climate is incredibly complicated, and making (key word coming up) long term predictions is very difficult to do with any confidence. but what the ipcc does do is note that in the short term, certain effects are very likely (they italicize it like that too) to occur, with those trends likely continuing in the long term. if you're interested in what these effects may be, feel free to read a fairly brief, well-sourced report from 2014 which outlines causes and effects of climate change here.

WELL I JUST RELOADED THE PAGE AND SAW Eryp ALREADY DID THIS BUT WHATVER LOL 2 POSTS ARE BETTER THAN 1!!! anyway yea climate change is real dude and stop watching prageru

edit: oh wow the bulk of my analysis goes right after his leaves off so these are some perfect companion pieces, great job Eryp <3

 

Lmao, we got two smart asses giving facts to people who are dumb enough to think global warming is not a threat.

 

Does someone want to do anything to get in your house so that they can live a better life?

 

wait then whats the wall for lmao

 

Don't worry. The incoming House Democrats have a whole new agenda built around global warming. It's nothing new. Back in 2016, the Democrats built into their platform a call to investigate — and presumably prosecute — businesses that didn't buy into their extremist global warming beliefs. This is scary, Stalinist stuff.

In the name of global warming, Americans may soon find their liberties to make a living and provide for their families curbed. It will come in the form of burdensome carbon taxes, tough restrictions on home building, and strict limits on car size and fuels.

In short, it's not the climate that the warmists wish to control. It's you.

So don't let these phony predictions of imminent climate doom made by government bureaucrats frighten you. Be angry instead.

We got one dumb person who doesn't even understand the science enough to formulate their own argument, and that's you. Stand down.

 

Some people do, yes. That''s what burglars are.

 

To help border patrol

 

I’m a big fan of Tom Cruuuuuuise - Rudy Mancuso and ThatGuyYouSaw

 

Not really but burglars have other ways of getting in a house other than breaking the wall.

 

This is very accurate. I'm no climate change denier, the evidence is overwhelming that our abuse of certain resources has and will change our environment and climate drastically over time. (Time has proven it not as drastic as previous projections, it seems to be somewhat of a moving goalpost, but that's how science works as it corrects itself) However, it is also true that western governments exaggerate the issue in order to strip the population of wealth. In Canada, we have carbon tax. Our carbon emissions have dropped exactly 0 since the implementation of the tax, the initial result is that our driving cost increased and most drastically our home heating costs have increased as much as 40%, even though the projected number by our government, the number we were promised, was significantly lower. It extends really far too actually, from things like cab fares to simple oil changes cost more now as a result of this. Anything transportation related, and companies have simply charged delivery locations for the tax to offset the cost, which means an even further reach as it now costs more for items that have nothing to do with fuel but because they had to be delivered. Not exactly sure what the plan is to do with that money, or why the tax is even necessary, as getting a straight answer out of our government is literally impossible. (see: you will not find our PM says anything of substance, literally ever) Our government however does offer rebates, but depending on where you live, you may get none of it back. I've received a small amount back, but it sort of adds to the pointless nature of the tax to take it and then claim a bunch of it goes back to those who paid it...maybe just don't take it in the first place lmao

I think at this point, if the science is accurate and climate change is as real a threat as they say, there really isn't anything we can do to stop it that we know of. Human populations are too high, resources will continue to be consumed at increasingly growing rates. If technology was advanced enough to provide us with a renewable & reliable source of energy that could replace our need for fossil fuels, we could combat some or maybe most of the emissions. However good luck getting particular parts of the world to comply. Where we are technologically...we would completely stifle certain economies that support millions and millions of people if we phased out fossil fuels, and those people consume products from other areas that would in turn suffer. It's an extremely complicated situation and no side has a proper idea on what to do. Taxing the crap out of people isn't going to help anyone, it merely hurts the individual. Ignoring the problem as if it isn't there doesn't work either. What can we do?

If you could make a little more sense I could respond to the question.

 

Says the copy and paste headass

 

Wait so your saying theirs gonna be a huge wall that cost millions of dollars just to help border patrol workers LMAO

 

How else would they get in without breaking in besides going in through the main door? That's why we need a wall, to be that door.

 

It makes sure that everyone entering goes in through the main passageway. Then, we can isolate the threat and increase border security.