Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 4 posts ] 
A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).
Author Message
TheGreekDollmakerPosts: 32Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:08 pm

Post A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).

This happened to a forum months ago with someone with clearly no knowlage of how the world works.

Just watch as me and some other guys take a rip on this guy.

We were talking about earth day (Which happened months ago) but still i think i want to share with you guys the incident.

PS:This happened on March of 2010.

The Reverend:

I am going to turn on every light and take all my speakers, hook them up, and play the Soviet National Anthem at full volume. I do this every year, but I guess without the music.

Also, I am extremely high on canned air so take what I say with some air.


Moderator:
You actually think that's funny?


The Reverend:
Where did I say I was trying to be funny? I am fucking serious. There is no man made climate change and there never will be. The Earth naturally changes climate, I have no control over that, so this day is a waste.

Me:
You are wrong.Climate change is the concecuances of playing around too much with nature and it has been
proven that we are affecting climate change with tenchology,science and other stuff.

Lets start with the rise of CO2 (Carbon Dyoxide).
With the continues marching of science in the 1900s new ways of producing energy where introduced.

Most of these where used in factories as fuel.The problem is that fuel,when burned,produces carbon
dioxide. An oxygen molecule has two oxygen atoms in it. Fires use this to produce carbon dioxide by
adding a single carbon atom from the fire's fuel,wood for instance.

That leads to the rise of Carbon Dyoxide levels in the atmosphere as explained by this article i found.

''Since in the 1900s mass burning of fuel was neeeded to create energy,that leaded in CO2 to start going
dangerously up. Thus while in the 1900s the atmoshreric Carbon Dyoxide levels where 290 Parts Per Million
(PPM) it has gone to 380 PPM in 2010.Compare that too the 1800s in which it was 280 PPM and it went to
290 in 100 years.''


So what does that lead to.The alarmingly fast rates of rising CO2 have made an effect on the enviroment
in the form of global warming.

One user asked me if the Poral Ice caps in the north pole are gona melt by say 2020.
This is my reply:

''The largest melting is occurring in Greenland, where 600 billion tons of ice are being lost each
year. Next comes Antarctica where 200 billion tons are lost each year. If I remember rightly the
Greenland ice mass is 1.50 quintillion something tons and Antarctica is 27
quintillion tons. At this rate Greenland will be ice free in more than 2 milienia 2550 years and it will
take Antarctice thousends of years before it is free of ice.

The Arctic ice is far more prone to seasonal variations than either Greenland or the Antarctic and each
year millions of square kilometres melt during the summer months then refreeze during winter. However,
refreezing does not match melting and there is a net reduction in ice coverage of an average 100,000 sq
km each year. In recent years the rate of melting has been accelerating and latest
predictions are that in about 30 years time the Arctic could melt completely each summer.

The reason why something like this is happening is due to The green house effect and Global warming.

Now both of those have been a problem since the start of the century but in order to understand the negative effecs on the
enviroment lets see how tempeture has reacted.

The tempeture is ussually counted by a 5 year period and a 10 year period.Lets stick to the 10 year period.If we saw how much the
tempeture the world has gone up it would be 0.2 in the last decade.That means in 50 years 1 degree goes up.In the last 2000 years the
world has risen its tempeture about 11.2 degrees in tempeture but their is a reason for that.

In the last 2000 years the global tempeture has been going up and down.Mostly in the 21th century the tempeture has gone up.

Still we can find some instances where the tempeture went REALLY went up thanks to science .For example the Permian-Triassic excincion
event which started about 250 million years ago showed that the tempeture in the world went abnormally high especially in the water.90%
of marine life died and 70% of all life got destroied.

Keep in mind that even 1 degree of rise in tempeture IS REALLY DANGEROUS.Many destruction from harricanes to other natural disasters
have been cause by the rise in tempeture.

The Rise of Tempeture can change the climate,increase the amounts of CO2 found in the world and many more.
For a more clear understanding of the problems how dangarous the rise in tempeture is take in mind that a fall of 3 degrees started the
Ice age.""


Some guy refering to the Reverend:
You are an idiot

^
l
l
I personally think this is the understatement of the century.

The Reverend:
Thanks for copying a very biased article. Carbon Dyoxide is what plants need to produce oxygen. We get rid of it, we all die because there will be no oxygen left. This is just political science at its best to brainwash the American people and others into letting the government put more taxes and surcharges on items.


Me:
"Thanks for copying a very biased article. Carbon Dyoxide is what plants need to produce oxygen. We get rid of it, we
all die because there will be no oxygen left."


I didnt copy anything (or very little) ,i wrote it my self after doing research.Also what Biased,do you even know what that word means.
Oh and i never said we should get rid of CO2,i just meant that we need to reduce the levels of CO2.
Its already clear that too much,or too low,of CO2 is cleary bad so we need to keep the amount of Co2 as much as in the middle as we can.

This is just political science at its best to brainwash the American people and others into letting the government put
more taxes and surcharges on items.


Image

Your clearly not worth my time.


I must note that this guy was being completly serious on not some random troll.

He has been a valid member of the community.

The Reverend:
You do realize, that most "Climate Scientists" faked the data and screwed the computers producing it to make it look like we had major climate change.

http://www.washingto...9120404511.html


Me:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5IdFVTTq8hc


Terminated :D

At this point he just decided to stop talking in that thread.

This is propably on of the few debates i have had on the internet.

I still think i onwed him through.
Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:58 am
CaseUser avatarPosts: 1080Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:40 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).

I appreciate your effort, but I'd like to address a couple of points:

1) Please work (hard) on improving your orthography. Especially if you go around calling people morons. For example: it's 'carbon dioxide', denoting the two (di-) oxygen (-oxide) atoms. 'Where' denotes an inquiry into the location of a certain entity, 'were' denotes the simple past form of 'to be', questions are denoted by a question mark, et cetera. All in all, your post is hardly legible.

2) "it has been proven that we are affecting climate change with tenchology,science and other stuff." Alright, where to begin... give us evidence and cite your sources for that claim that somehow "science" caused climate change.

3) "That leads to the rise of Carbon Dyoxide levels in the atmosphere as explained by this article i found. (continued)" If you're going to quote something, name the source. Obviously you didn't quote, as it reads just like the rest of your text. That's called paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, you cite the source. "An article I read" does not qualify as proper description of the source.

4) "Still we can find some instances where the tempeture went REALLY went up thanks to science" This is why syntax is crucial. As it stands, your sentence means "Science caused the temperature to rise." What you probably mean is "Still, thanks to science we were able to find instances of an increase in temperature."
I am determined that my children shall be brought up in their father's religion, if they can find out what it is.
Charles Lamb (1775 - 1834)

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:45 pm
TheGreekDollmakerPosts: 32Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:08 pm

Post Re: A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).

Case wrote:I appreciate your effort, but I'd like to address a couple of points:

1) Please work (hard) on improving your orthography. Especially if you go around calling people morons. For example: it's 'carbon dioxide', denoting the two (di-) oxygen (-oxide) atoms. 'Where' denotes an inquiry into the location of a certain entity, 'were' denotes the simple past form of 'to be', questions are denoted by a question mark, et cetera. All in all, your post is hardly legible.

2) "it has been proven that we are affecting climate change with tenchology,science and other stuff." Alright, where to begin... give us evidence and cite your sources for that claim that somehow "science" caused climate change.

3) "That leads to the rise of Carbon Dyoxide levels in the atmosphere as explained by this article i found. (continued)" If you're going to quote something, name the source. Obviously you didn't quote, as it reads just like the rest of your text. That's called paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, you cite the source. "An article I read" does not qualify as proper description of the source.

4) "Still we can find some instances where the tempeture went REALLY went up thanks to science" This is why syntax is crucial. As it stands, your sentence means "Science caused the temperature to rise." What you probably mean is "Still, thanks to science we were able to find instances of an increase in temperature."


Yeah as you can propably guess i am not really that good in english...

Problem is i dont remember the sources so il have to check on that one,

This conversation took part in March and some parts extent back to 2009.

Incidently the problems that you pointed out to me remind me of this:
Image

I will try to correct my mistakes and make sure too cite my sources next time.
Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:55 pm
CaseUser avatarPosts: 1080Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:40 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: A debate about Global Climate Change (with a moron).

I'm looking forward to that. ;) And again - it's important people realize that AGW is very real, and it's important to get the message out there, so I support your initiative.
I am determined that my children shall be brought up in their father's religion, if they can find out what it is.
Charles Lamb (1775 - 1834)

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:19 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 4 posts ] 
Return to Debates Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests