The Weather Channel confronts Breitbart's claims that global

>>90522
>weather channel
>not fake news

I'd have imagined conservatives and alt-right could be pretty solidly behind the idea that we should do whatever is feasible to minimize the risk of a hundred million equatorial climate refugees displaced by desertification of agricultural land or rising sea levels, and flooding northward.

>>92807

>expecting people to understand cause and effect chains beyond one connection

The average person acts like this is some sort of 9th dimensional chess when you chain more than two events together.

>>92807
>getting behind a liberal hoax
>supporting welfare queen scientist

You're a pretty funny guy. I like you.

>>92811

See what happens when I attempt to explain something simple in math (i.e. arithmetic) to an adult. The trick: do not use the word "math".

The average adult is an asshole who doesn't like to ever have their worldview threatened, hence why they don't like to think about counterintuitive possibilities in chains of events.

>>90522
>Science doesn't care about your opinion. Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future nor the fact

Coming from people who can't even properly prove their hypothesis is quite hilarious. At this point they're on the same level as britbart.

>>92831
The Weather Channel are just a bunch of $Hillbot.

>>92824
Supporting wellfare banks with bailouts and deregulations.. at least science gives us shit to use.
Heck windmills offer communites a cheap way of getting electricity, that removes their dependence of fossil fuels.

Tell me what do banks do.

>>92861
find me a windmill provider that doesn't go bankrupt intentionally within 10 years of opening

ya see funny thing is those things have lifespans, and when they need to be removed it's up to the company that built them to remove and restore the land to it's original condition. cause that's how to do it green!

Unless the company isn't around anymore

funny how that works

>>92831
>Implying you understand Science

You can't prove anything, you can merely pile up enough evidence that points towards a logical conclusion. Climate change and anthropogenic climate change have thousands of studies backing it up, but I have yet to see any denialist actually come up with any sort of credible information, much less get it published in a peer reviewed journal.

>>92927
>but I have yet to see any denialist actually come up with any sort of credible information, much less get it published in a peer reviewed journal.
Don't worry, claims and ebooks are just as valid as peer review journals. Don't you know that the Earth is actually flat? And, hey, Alex Jones said that global warming isn't real, so it must be true, right?

>>92807
They could actually steal a decent chunk of left votes if they just pretended to care about the climate change meme.

Pollution is bad regardless.
>>92927
I have yet to actually see any information that proves that humans are responsible for said global warming.

Twice as many c02 parts are in the air has have ever been recorded, but humans only contribute anywhere between 3-17% (vastly disputed number) of that. Even assuming the maximum amount of 17%, that means it's not our fault.

>>90522
The only think worse than armchair scientist are corrupted "politicized" armchair scientist.
Why is politics so cancerous? Why must it corrupt everything it touches? I mean both environmentalist and climate change deniers in this case.
Every time a scientific matter start being a political/social/ethical argument of "discussion" it shows how we still didn't totally get rid of that dark ages mentality.

>>92916
How about Ferguson windmills? Literally Google windmills

>>92831
>>92934
>>92938
Every time climate change is mentioned, every time, the same discussion ensues.

It's been funny watching it shift as the years go by, at first it was "climate change isn't real" then it became "climate change is real but it's part of a normal cycle" then it became "climate change is real and abnormal but we didn't cause it" what's next? "Climate change is real, abnormal, and caused by human activity, but more nitpicking about specific predictions" or will it be "... but we can't do anything about it, so why should we try"

The dispute about climate change has become about an smaller and smaller part of the issue over the years, gerrymandering almost

To address your specific point about CO2, burning fossil fuels accounts for 29 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually compared to about 700 for natural processes (IPCC ar4) however the natural processes are in equilibrium with the same amount sequestered from the atmosphere, human activity is pushing the concentration up, there is a pretty big carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere, and this is probably where you're getting your ~15% figure from, but the thing is the human activity is all one way, and pushing the equilibrium out of equilibrium, further adding to this is our earnest efforts at deforestation, reducing the environments means of correcting this imbalance

>I have yet to see any evidence that humans caused global warming
Then you haven't bothered looking, the scientific consensus has been pretty clear on this for quite a few years now

A good place to start is NASA's website, there's a well referenced overview here
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

>>92982
>A good place to start is NASA's website, there's a well referenced overview here
Don't you know that NASA tricked us into believing that Earth is round when it's actually flat?
https://youtu.be/5cLkhCfucmQ
Just look at them...

>>92990
>secular talk
Mah man.

>>92990
>vid: "NASA put a man on the Moon..."

Bwahahaa! People still buy that shit? Seriously, if those photos and videos were from the Moon, then why were there no stars? Isn't it a simpler explanation that all the hundreds of workers who have perfectly kept this secret for decades all totally forgot to paint stars on the velvet backdrop in the secret studio where they filmed everything?

>>92996
You're being sarcastic, right? I hope so.

>>92999
God I hope it won't take another decade until that question doesn't have to be asked again on this site (10 years ago it didn't have to).

Yes, sarcasm. And if it were more subtle and 10 years ago it would just be me trolling. Now... ordinary people spout this shit because Trumpism basically opened the floodgates on diy-conspiracy-theories. cf. pizzagate.

>>92996
this guy really thinks some fucking guys drove a spaceship 238,000 miles through radiation and all that shit AND they flew back no problem.

did they ever explain how they survived the radiation?

not only that, those fucking guys did it several times. only 5 years after beginning the program too.

it's been 50 years or something so we don't have that technology anymore. gotta build a new ship, lost the plans. weird right, lol.

>>93019
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

>Here Dr. Van Allen specifically addresses rapid transits through the region, stating only that the human body will have be to be shielded. Also note that the dates of these quotes are many years prior to the first lunar flight in 1968, giving designers adequate time to further study the problem and devise solutions. In fact, Dr. Van Allen helped to design the Apollo lunar trajectories, which were engineered specifically to lessen radiation exposure. Despite the conspiracists' insistence that Dr. Van Allen agrees with them, he has rejected the claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts, calling it "nonsense".

Here's an article, with calculations of (non-lethal) dose received, to BTFO your claim.

Of course, you won't read it because you're retarded and want to believe what you want to believe. You fucking idiot.

>>93019
I had a dental X-Ray once. Actually several times. The doctor stood behind layers of glass while I just sat there! Never explained how I survived the radiation.

>>93019
>what is radiation shielding

Are you seriously this stupid or am I getting baited?

>>93029
I'm sorry cause this is probably hella annoying to you but it's just hilarious to me

238,000 miles. in a literal spaceship. in 1966.

why haven't we gone back? why haven't any other countries done it, even Russia?

it's just so funny, come on man. why are images of space alway CGI instead of a pictures? we're supposed to have thousands of satellites up there already.

they just launched 8 satellites to monitor hurricanes. they weren't already doing that? NASA is stupid.

>>93033
>>93035
the radiation is only one of the hilarious aspects of this story.

how did they launch the ship from the moon? wouldn't that require a lot of gas or a rocket? they carried that 238,000 miles?

>>93036
Because it's a literal waste of money

You guys are getting stupider with every post, holy shit....

>>93044
Do you still believe in Santa clause even? grow up.

>>93036
>why haven't we gone back? why haven't any other countries done it, even Russia?

We have gone back, but it's a giant money pit of an endeavor which costs too many resources for benefit gained. This also explains why other countries haven't done it, as it's basically a giant dick-waggling move at this point and most of the stuff we have the capability to know has been documented.

>it's just so funny, come on man. why are images of space alway CGI instead of a pictures? we're supposed to have thousands of satellites up there already.

Are you retarded? Genuinely curious.

>they just launched 8 satellites to monitor hurricanes. they weren't already doing that? NASA is stupid.
http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/40yearsa.html

Because NOAA was already doing it and they could study using their satellites instead of sending their own.

>>93047
Incredible comeback, you've ripped a hole right through my mind. How could I ever have believed something as silly as basic physics?

At last I see the light!

>>93042
>how did they launch the ship from the moon? wouldn't that require a lot of gas or a rocket? they carried that 238,000 miles?

... you... you do know that the moon's gravity isn't as powerful ours, right? It's not even close...

>>93051
>Are you retarded?

yeah I'm the retard for noticing they never use real pictures of Earth. CGI is expensive btw.

>>93052
you're missing the point. it's just a story, is what I'm saying.

believing that humans flew a spaceship to the moon and back several times before we had the internet is not akin to believing in "basic physics"

the only proof is shitty video, which is of course not proof of anything.

>>93054
still gonna need a powerful rocket to get away from its gravity.

did they have a spare rocket in the spaceships truck?

or do spaceships just have huge gas tanks?

What the fuck am I reading

Srs

>>93068
wake up sheeple

>>93065
Basic physics is exactly how our space program was achieved. Basic physics is how spaceships travel. Basic physics is how rockets were designed.

If you doubt the moon landing, then you do not accept the clarity of empirical truth and scientific research.

You, sir, do not live in the same reality as I do. And I do not have any reason to care about you. I have no motivation to improve your life. There is no point in my arguing for truth when you don't even accept basic physical properties and sciences.

>>93072
the most extraordinary claim next to Jesus Christ's resurrection, and you believe it with no evidence.

but I'm the fool... ok.

>>93081
It is only extraordinary because you do not have the mental capacity to understand it. Earth is not some great, unassailable prison. It's a chunk of rock floating in a vast and empty void.

You are the fool because you are foolish. Because you have no scientific knowledge. Because you deny facts. Because you deny reality. You are the literal definition of a fool.

>>93090
right, I'm sure you understand rocket science. the rocket science NASA forgot and need to redesign for their next trip to the moon. lol

maybe you can help them out, smart guy.

>>93065

>believing that humans flew a spaceship to the moon and back several times before we had the internet

But not before computers, the one thing you actually need to calculate everything. Most of the engineering behind the Apollo program and those before it was trying to cram smaller and smaller computers into the Saturn series rockets. That initial push for miniaturization is actually the basis for all personal computers.

>>93066

>did they have a spare rocket in the spaceships truck?

...Did you seriously not know this?

The lunar lander specifically had TWO separate rocket systems built into it, one less powerful one for controlling descent, and a second system to ascend back to the command module (which remained in orbit). Remember also that, from the launch on Earth, each time the craft would lose a significant amount of mass as the excess systems were jettisoned off. By the time you're in lunar orbit, the Apollo is merely a fraction of the weight it was during the initial launch, and on the return trip from the lunar surface to lunar orbit it's roughly 1/3 of that (connecting again with one of the other thirds in orbit before returning to Earth, where again it would jettison everything except for the command capsule for the final plunge back into Earth's atmosphere).

>>93006

>increase in flat earth believers
>increase in moon landing deniers
>increase in evolution denial

Honestly I don't know where we're going next, are we going to claim that atoms aren't real? That would be a fun way to start WWIII.
>I think these "atomic" weapons you claim to have are based on faulty science and therefore ineffective at their stated task
>therefore, I declare war
>what the fuck why are all my cities exploding
>woooooooow how was I supposed to know that atoms are real?
>wow what are these bugged physics thanks Kojima

After writing that, I have come to the realization that having DSP as president would be a fucking hilarious way to die.

>>93111
Rocket science isn't complicated. It is literally basic physics, as I said before. Rocket science being arcane and complex is just a meme.

>>93113
it just sounds more ridiculous every time I hear it.

understand that I used to take everything you just

at a certain point it hit me how crazy this is. And there's no proof! They should have left a big ass balloon on the moon, or something.

I'm not believing in anything this extraordinary without proof, sorry. I'm not a child.

>>93117
understand that I used to take everything you just said as fact*

>>93006
What's become of the Pizzagate scandal? Are the claims substantiated?

>>93117

>They should have left a big ass balloon on the moon, or something.

Apollo 15 left a laser reflection array that you can spot via telescope. Hell, every mission left behind the lower half of the lander on the moon, with a sufficiently powerful telescope you can see that shit for yourself (not to mention that telescope would have to be powerful to see you balloon as well, so no "but they rigged all the telescopes!" responses please).

Also I fail to see how this is ridiculous, your car can travel for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas carrying you and your four best friends plus all your stuff, a commercial airliner can fly for thousands of miles on one fuel load while also carrying hundreds of passengers plus all their baggage (not to mention going against gravity the whole time), why can't a rocket with three guys travel to the moon and back after literally over a decade on nonstop research and test flights?

In fact, outside of the initial hardship of breaking atmosphere (something which normal aircraft were nearly doing by the late 60's) and stress of reentry, space travel is generally easier because you can give air resistance the middle finger. The Moon's gravity is so fucking light it doesn't even have an atmosphere, so you are merely overcoming its gravity for an extended duration (think about it, a human can momentarily beat earth's gravity by jumping, how hard can it be to defeat something 1/7th that power for a minute?). Do you think it is not possible to build a small enough rocket motor to get two guys and their car to beat this?

>>93125
>Are the claims substantiated?

Satanic rituals performed as part of a pedophile ring in the basement of pizza parlors?

Of course it's substantiated!

>>93144
Seems far fetched, but there are references to pizza and cheese in Podesta's emails. It's definitely not something you'd expect a person writing emails about. Has any of this made the news (not just YouTube videos)?

>>93152

It made the mainstream news when some white NEET shot up a pizza parlor looking for the basement to rescue the kids chained up there. It didn't have a basement.

Yes, people mention cheese pizza in emails. As in, "We're going to have to stay in late tonight on this Ukraine briefing. Memo the evening secretary to order in some pizza and coffee. Oh and I think so-and-so is vegetarian so make sure you get at least one cheese pizza".

That's a literal email from my pedophilia club in undergrad.

climatology is obama's fault

>>92807
Let those fools suffer once the entire Middle East moves into Europe by the end of the century.

>>93137
>with a sufficiently powerful telescope you can see that shit for yourself
I will test this one day. only then will I believe in this story.

a lot of your post males sense. but are you saying they escaped the moons gravity in 1 minute?

that's the kind of unbelievable tidbit that got me in this Web of doubt.

>>92994
Ever since Kyle sold out to Big Seltzer, he hasn't been the same.

>>93236
not the person you're responding to, but you're a retard.

there's a difference between skepticism and shear, unfounded doubt.

if you want the truth, you'd find it. fucking retarded millennials these days. I run an observatory and I have to point the telescope at the moon and let the youtube kids literally see it for themselves because they are so lost and failed by society that they don't actually believe its there until they see it.

>>93241
>if you want the truth, you'd find it
why do you think I'm spending time talking about this?

you may run an observatory but you aren't so observant. jk.

>>93236

I said one minute because I just needed a number greater than one second, and I didn't bother looking up the actual time. For an estimate, it takes 8 minutes to get into earth orbit, so assuming it scales linearly (which is a bad assumption, I know) it would be over one minute.

In terms of escape velocity, the moon is 2.38 km/s to the Earth's 11.2 km/s. Therefore it takes less than 1/4 the power to escape lunar gravity compared to Earth. Using that as an estimate (and again, a faulty assumption), it would take 2 minutes.

Further research shows that the Apollo standard lunar orbit altitude was 110 km, so based on yet another estimate it would be about 60 seconds assuming they reached escape velocity relatively quickly.

So it turns out I wasn't that far off in terms of time from surface to orbit.

Also another correction, Lunar gravity is 1/6, not 1/7, of Earth's.

If you want the full thrust math, there's plenty of sites that do a much better job than I ever could explaining the exact amount of thrust required to propel an object with the mass of the lunar lander. In short, the rockets were way more powerful than what was needed, and by strategically leaving parts in orbit (with the command module, things not needed for the lunar landing) they cut down on the amount of fuel and power needed to do the lunar descent and return.

>>92982
>scientific consensus
((Science)) maybe, but real science is either a yes or no and if you got a no then your supposed to go back and reexamine the data not pretend it's right because the lot of you agreed on what it should be.

>A good place to start is NASA's website
NASA/Hansen models predictions failed

>I meant the UN Climate Council
IPCC models predictions failed

>NO I meant a world wide standard
CMIPs models predictions failed

>>93257
>real science
I see you are quite the connoisseur, especially so as you have mixed up long term climate and short term weather, and have decided to ignore where they were bang on correct ie global mean temperature

I literally would not care about Trump's win if he was just reasonable about climate change instead of appealing to the 2% of retards who shout loudly enough about climate change that they get noticed. There is rarely anything in science with such an established body of literature that is ALL pointing in the same fucking direction that somehow gets lost in misinformation. Even Exxon-fucking-Mobil basically admitted anthropogenic climate change was a massive concern before they began the press machine to make everyone think it's a non-issue

Tillerson and Ebell are massive shills but the alt right thinks this is somehow OK because Trump said they weren't. Good enough for me!!11! Climate denialism is what fattens their cash cow and now they have a mandate to continue drilling and stifling green tech because they'll be safely above the unwashed masses when immigration and irreversible warming begin to take their toll

and can we stop debating the fucking moon landing, this is worse than 9/11 conspiracies

>>93264
Populist tend to have cults of personality built up around them. Even Sanders got some creepy worship from his followers and I supported him. People will see what they want to see, especially in this "post-fact" world.

>>93260
>long term
650k of sediment core data says we're at the top in a 150k year warming cycle

>short term
Last 20 years have seen no significance rise (.02c) in global mean temp via RSS while the 2015 co2 ppm is at twice its highest peek in the last 400 thousand years.

Cry all you want but the divergence between satellite data and RSS data proves that the AGW theory is flawed. Hiding behind consensus doesn't mean you're right.

>>93277
This year has featured the warmest half year since records have been kept, and the warmest year the arctic has experienced.
Moreover, we have evidence of subarctic animals migrating further north and changes in ecology founded in changing temperatures that suggest the current trends are something quite new when considered over a span of time longer than what a century of records show.

Keep in mind, the bulk of the warming is oceanic, not atmospheric, due to vertical heat transfer. As water temperatures approach thermal equilibrium with the air, the rate of atmospheric warming will accelerate.

If you want to remain agnostic of decades of data collected worldwide feel free, but being agnostic about the risk regarding a global annihilation hazard still cannot justify in any way inaction, when the opportunity cost is simply setting stricter parameters to our use of cheap, extractive energy sources.

>>93277

the issue is that a large majority of this warming cycle's most significant gains have come concurrently with massive amounts of emissions from burning fossil fuels

we are creating an additive (and arguably synergistic) effect where our own consumption has drastically increased the atmospheric co2 level

plus the trend seems fairly obvious
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

>>93252
thanks, really made me thonk.

>>93277
I see a subtle difference now tho, there's been a huge and sudden increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and these cause global temperatures to rise, and concurrently, there's been an increase in global temperatures

Also, the sediment core data shows that we are at the hottest we've been in 150k years, and never has there been a decrease in global mean temperature as CO2 concentration has increased

>>92990
>muh conspiratard layers of irony

>>93019
They upgraded their shields while on Citadel, duh.

>>93081
You are lucky this is a blue board.

>>93324
What?

>>93264
>9/11 conspiracies

b... bbbut the 9/11 conspiracy is rational and scientifically investigated by years of careful internet research, while the Moon landing conspiracy theories are made up by just a bunch of crackpots.

Just like how pizzagate is made up by a bunch of idiots but Sandy Hook was definitely a hoax that only sheeple could believe in.

I just want to say this about government based conspiracy theories

Does anyone actually think the U.S Gov't is actually competent or smart enough to keep ANY sort of secret.

Cause if you do, you're the crazy one

>>93343
The US Government has lots of secrets. Just look at The Nevada Test Range. Area 51 is the 51st secret area.. What happens in the first 50?

>>93366
>Area 51 is the 51st secret area

This reveals your post is satire right? I mean, if you are an Area51tard then you know "area 51" is the USGS designation for that particular block of land on a grid drawn across the state.

The average person has no idea what has been taken place for decades now . I woke up to all of the truth & Facts a year and a half ago . Once you realize how capable the human is of evil you come to realize you can trust no one . So for those who believe fuel can melt steel and two planes can bring three buildings down and tumble at free fall . Hint Hint revaluation and research with no preconceived notions . It's amazing once you wake up how you're braincells finally work . However if you enjoy being a gullible naive human who is able to trust anyone with a story only because their face is on a television screen and their lips move but the relevant info is not coming out . So much has happened unless you know good alternative media sights or you research yourself . You will never understand one truth from another . Do not take my word for it start looking and asking yourself intelligent questions such as why all main stream media is 90% owned by 6 Corps or why on Oct 1ST our internet was handed over to ICANN a china company " Are they not communist " ? HMM I bet the sleepers did not know those two factoids the question is DO YOU EVEN CARE !!!! If you don't go on with your cozy little world but if your curious search until your fingers bleed because only then will you know one truth from the other.

>>93380
americans everyone

>>93373
No, it isn't, and I'm not even talking about ayyylmao shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site#Areas

I really hate certain aspects of science have been polluted with politics.
You wouldn't go to a politician for medical advice or car repairs, but you better fucking believe him when he talks about earth science.

>>93373
>"area 51" is the USGS designation for that particular block of land on a grid drawn across the state.
Seriously, not trying to disparage you but instead whoever told you this, but where the fuck do you get this from?

>>93366
none of that's a secret, thousands of people know what goes on there, it's cool stuff but mundane, the security isn't excessive it's necessary

although now that the DNC literally owns all the major media sources the are pretty good at delegitimizing info, take "pizzagate" for example.

It's a prove fact Bill and even Hillary have spent a lot of time with their buddy Epstein and his Haitian teen prostitutes, we have the damn flight logs. but that story is untouchable

there's a whole inside the beltway and outside set of secrets, so long as the general public never finds out about things everyone's happy, D.C. is that corrupt, and people who try to make waves end up committing "suicide"

>>90522
Tanks, jets and military require fuel. Until the military operates on battery packs. Nothing will. This is because you must be faster and more efficient in war and nothing does that better than using your fuel powered shit to destory their fuel supply.

CC is most likely real but either overexagurated or constructed on such a way to fit the things libs want or underexagurated because we only have two weeks to live. Theres no middle