debate

Discord ID: 634548436280016906


3,636 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/15 | Next

2019-10-18 04:54:27 UTC

n

2019-10-18 05:02:54 UTC

uh?

2019-10-20 18:11:38 UTC

Angry was here

2019-10-20 18:32:21 UTC

no he wasn't

2019-10-20 18:42:03 UTC

Uh huh

2019-10-20 19:49:33 UTC

All trees are blue.

2019-10-21 01:38:26 UTC

wtf

2019-10-21 01:38:35 UTC

did you delete my post?

2019-10-21 01:38:44 UTC

Banjod was here.

2019-10-21 04:02:59 UTC

God exists.

2019-10-21 04:03:46 UTC

yes

2019-10-21 04:06:21 UTC

Prots r dumb

2019-10-21 04:35:36 UTC

finally someone with a brain

2019-10-21 09:42:11 UTC

who deleted my first post, you sore loser

2019-10-21 09:42:54 UTC

in which I gave the proof of god and jesus, i guess you'll never know now

2019-10-21 12:41:47 UTC

There's proof of Jesus?

2019-10-21 12:44:23 UTC

yes

2019-10-21 12:44:27 UTC

it's called this BIBLE

2019-10-21 12:44:29 UTC

<:dab:395562678153904128>

2019-10-21 16:44:10 UTC

The Bible is proof of Jesus like Spiderman-Comics are proof for Spiderman. It is a proof of a story which does not necessarily took place in the real world.

2019-10-21 17:55:10 UTC

wasn't there even other suff ther proves that Jesus lived??
ike other historical documents

2019-10-21 18:01:20 UTC

Yes.

2019-10-21 18:04:22 UTC

Historical facts:
- After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
- On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
- On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
- The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

2019-10-22 16:51:56 UTC

Even if you don't believe in the miracles, it's widely acknowledged by historians that a man called Jesus did exist in the flesh and blood around 2k years ago

2019-10-22 17:12:28 UTC

bruv just hit the emojis

2019-10-22 17:21:27 UTC

alot of the stories ascribed to said man might not even be him, or true

2019-10-22 17:22:07 UTC

the bible is the jj abrahams version of a bunch of urban legends 500 years earlier

2019-10-22 22:00:41 UTC

I personally think Jesus may have been heir to the Hasmonean throne.

2019-10-22 22:04:09 UTC

I personally think Jesus may have been a mushroom

2019-10-22 22:09:30 UTC

Badgers

2019-10-23 23:24:05 UTC

There is no true Scotsman.

2019-10-23 23:24:10 UTC

Prove me wrong.

2019-10-24 10:20:28 UTC

Fallacy.

2019-10-24 10:20:31 UTC

Done.

2019-10-24 22:16:38 UTC

ol skool

2019-10-24 22:23:33 UTC

mushroom MUSHROOM

2019-10-24 22:23:37 UTC

Newgrounds gang-gang

2019-10-25 08:25:53 UTC

I can honestly see why God would save Catholics over Protestants

2019-10-25 09:47:46 UTC

Not on their own, @The Eternal Swede , but if every conventional measure of normal evidence gets undermined by technology, they eventually CAN use that to argue the case for...say, state enforced DNA banks. Or tracking software.

2019-10-25 09:48:14 UTC

They can use that to argue for those things already, as they know about the existence of deep fakes

2019-10-25 09:49:01 UTC

Where the tech goes from here, publicity-wise, doesn't affect that very much

2019-10-25 09:49:19 UTC

They can and will make whatever arguments they like, and if not these arguments, they will make other ones

2019-10-25 09:49:49 UTC

I don't think the existence of deep fakes *meaningfully* affects their ability to create a deeper police state, is what I'm trying to say

2019-10-25 09:50:48 UTC

We'll see if this won't be used past making porn video's about AOC

2019-10-25 09:50:50 UTC

no such thing as state overreach

2019-10-25 09:50:55 UTC

ยฏ\_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ

2019-10-25 09:52:19 UTC

I don't have any numbers on it, but i'd be curious to know what are the predominant evidence methods currently used to convict criminals.

2019-10-25 10:00:55 UTC

None of you believe there will be a transition period for stuff like this? People will be instantly redpilled? I dont buy it. Especially in Europe where people get convicted for tweets they cant even prove were written by them.

2019-10-25 10:28:53 UTC

I bet the jews love this though, it means soon you can personify your stepmom pornhub fantasies

2019-10-25 10:29:11 UTC

no people are selected by the redpill

and people like u and i will only propogate if the redpill selection machine helps with fertility and lifestyle

2019-10-25 10:31:30 UTC

haha, soonโ„ข

2019-10-25 10:31:34 UTC

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/634548436280016906/637236806290505778/unknown.png

2019-10-25 13:05:41 UTC

I am Muslim ama

2019-10-25 13:08:28 UTC

When will you leave our countries

2019-10-25 13:09:46 UTC

does your mother make good curry?

2019-10-25 13:09:50 UTC

<:basedmama:396156349676781569>

2019-10-25 13:12:13 UTC

Her mother is in the curry

2019-10-25 14:15:48 UTC

Hey whatโ€™s up guys

2019-10-25 14:16:10 UTC

I believe global warming is a real phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:16:12 UTC

Debate me

2019-10-25 14:28:18 UTC

Explain how historic levels of atmospheric CO2 did not contribute towards runaway warming. Then I might consider debating.

2019-10-25 14:29:04 UTC

I'm specifically talking about periods in history when atmospheric CO2 was at levels ~1500ppm

2019-10-25 14:37:05 UTC

@oojimaflip can you give me one instance of this? There are different reasons for different time periods.

2019-10-25 14:38:25 UTC

Carboniferous period will do. As far as I can see the contention of climate scientists is that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead, via the greenhouse effect, to Earth becomming more like Venus.

2019-10-25 14:38:44 UTC

if this were true, Earth would already look like Venus.

2019-10-25 14:39:50 UTC

What was the carbon dioxide ppm at that time

2019-10-25 14:39:58 UTC

~1500ppm

2019-10-25 14:40:56 UTC

I mean Venus has an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide it says Iโ€™m not sure having a atmosphere of 1500 ppm would make it turn into Venus

2019-10-25 14:41:43 UTC

not in terms of atmospheric compostition, no. But that's not the contention.

2019-10-25 14:42:01 UTC

What

2019-10-25 14:42:30 UTC

"atmospheric CO2 levels >400ppm (current) will lead to catastrophic temperature rise."

2019-10-25 14:42:52 UTC

that's the contention, is it not?

2019-10-25 14:45:06 UTC

So there is a difference between these things. In ones instance the temperature gain were slower. The ecosystem is able to adapt over the 100,000 or what ever time period. 10000 years maybe. Human beings are raising co2 levels a lot more a quickly and this is why it will lead to catastrophic effects

2019-10-25 14:45:28 UTC

it's also a fallacy that "Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is 96% CO2"

2019-10-25 14:45:57 UTC

Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's

2019-10-25 14:47:56 UTC

Well itโ€™s actually 2 things. Itโ€™s high co2 levels and itโ€™s thicker atmosphere. We can observe the green house effect of co2 in experiments. High schoolers do this.

2019-10-25 14:48:09 UTC

So we know co2 has this effect

2019-10-25 14:49:29 UTC

the rate of temp change does not explain why 1500ppm would not cause further (increasing) temp rise

2019-10-25 14:49:54 UTC

where's the runaway greenhouse effect?

2019-10-25 14:50:39 UTC

What do you mean? What it seems is the carbon dioxide increased more plants started to over grow took the carbon dioxide out of the air.

2019-10-25 14:50:50 UTC

And the temperature went down

2019-10-25 14:50:54 UTC

whilst CO2 is correlated to temp quite well, data clearly shows that CO2 increases as a result of increased global temp

2019-10-25 14:51:12 UTC

not the other way round

2019-10-25 14:51:29 UTC

Why would higher temperature cause higher co2 levels

2019-10-25 14:52:10 UTC

This doesnโ€™t make any sense

2019-10-25 14:52:21 UTC

What is the phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:52:54 UTC

CO2 is exhaust from animal life, higher stable temps mean more life.

2019-10-25 14:55:10 UTC

It also means a lot more plants that take carbon dioxide out of the air and it seems plants have more an effect on co2 levels then animals do at least on land. For the time period you have shit tons of plants grew took carbon dioxide out of the air and the world almost ended up in an ice age

2019-10-25 14:56:23 UTC

Do you deny that carbon dioxide has a green house effect? Do you deny the high schoolers experiments done that show this effect on heat retention? @oojimaflip

2019-10-25 14:56:26 UTC

plant cycle for captuuring CO2 is much slower to react and time between max plant biomass (governed by CO2 levels) and min plant biomass is muuch longer

2019-10-25 14:56:43 UTC

So for example

2019-10-25 14:57:11 UTC

it is a false equivalence to equate a greenhouse and Earth's atmosphere

2019-10-25 14:57:13 UTC

If you take a jar fill it with carbon dioxide and put it under a heat lamp it is hotter then the jar with lower amounts of carbon dioxide

2019-10-25 14:57:31 UTC

our atmosphere is not a jar

2019-10-25 14:58:09 UTC

No of course not but it shows in the small scale the effect that carbon dioxide traping light energy and because of this higher temperature

2019-10-25 14:58:20 UTC

a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air

2019-10-25 14:58:34 UTC

You have a misunderstanding

2019-10-25 14:58:44 UTC

it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation

2019-10-25 14:58:53 UTC

Green house effect is not the same as a green house

2019-10-25 14:59:09 UTC

These are too different phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:59:16 UTC

And things

2019-10-25 14:59:28 UTC

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

2019-10-25 14:59:30 UTC

They are called the same just because scientist name things badly

2019-10-25 15:00:10 UTC

What do you mean based off TSI values

2019-10-25 15:00:41 UTC

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

2019-10-25 15:01:23 UTC

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

2019-10-25 15:02:22 UTC

Yes I guess.

2019-10-25 15:02:41 UTC

well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

2019-10-25 15:02:55 UTC

Why

2019-10-25 15:03:18 UTC

We can see in small scale experiments the effect co2 has on temperature

2019-10-25 15:03:33 UTC

In closed environments

2019-10-25 15:03:57 UTC

sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels

2019-10-25 15:04:04 UTC

not 0.04%

2019-10-25 15:04:12 UTC

secondarily

2019-10-25 15:05:17 UTC

how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?

2019-10-25 15:06:19 UTC

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

2019-10-25 15:07:34 UTC

how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)

2019-10-25 15:09:28 UTC

it isnt mroe potent

2019-10-25 15:09:53 UTC

they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change

2019-10-25 15:09:55 UTC

Okay first off. Just because there is a small percent change. Doesnโ€™t mean it will have a large effect. Nature can only absorb so much of it and adding more doesnโ€™t get absorbed. Thatโ€™s why it might seem like a small percent but itโ€™s actually big.

2019-10-25 15:09:59 UTC

how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?

2019-10-25 15:10:16 UTC

Data modification? We modify all data

2019-10-25 15:10:31 UTC

its cherrypicked data

2019-10-25 15:10:34 UTC

only if you want to fit it to a model

2019-10-25 15:10:38 UTC

data is data

2019-10-25 15:10:44 UTC

I mean you got to show evidence for this

2019-10-25 15:10:46 UTC

yes i agree data is data

2019-10-25 15:10:55 UTC

just dont tell people to trust data

2019-10-25 15:11:04 UTC

science doesnt work if you politicise the data

2019-10-25 15:11:11 UTC

this ^

2019-10-25 15:11:11 UTC

and the science process itself

2019-10-25 15:11:31 UTC

Show me proof nasa cherry picks data

2019-10-25 15:11:58 UTC

already did

2019-10-25 15:12:06 UTC

go look at any Tony Heller yt video, he's been showing the data tampering for years

2019-10-25 15:12:12 UTC

its on the frontpage of their hockeystick

2019-10-25 15:12:16 UTC

page

2019-10-25 15:12:30 UTC

amazing what youu can find when youu take a copy of original data

2019-10-25 15:12:32 UTC

Oh the supposed data mixing he cries about?

2019-10-25 15:13:16 UTC

homogenizing is something else that's laughable;; including low quality data does not increase precision

2019-10-25 15:13:47 UTC

Do you know that you need to use data mixing to compare co2 levels now co2 levels before? Of course you should try to avoid data mixing but itโ€™s impossible in this circumstance.

2019-10-25 15:13:48 UTC

so they've added thousands of data points.... from airports!! ๐Ÿ˜‚

2019-10-25 15:14:04 UTC

urban heat islands

2019-10-25 15:14:19 UTC

yeah, sure, that won't skew the data at all

2019-10-25 15:14:27 UTC

Iโ€™m not sure if I would take tony hellers word on any of this

2019-10-25 15:14:36 UTC

don't have to

2019-10-25 15:15:01 UTC

that's the beautiful thing, it's clear in the data itself

2019-10-25 15:15:14 UTC

Yeah we canโ€™t do ice core data of co2 levels now. So if you want to compared co2 levels now to millions of years ago how do you do this without data mixing

2019-10-25 15:15:20 UTC

I've looked at both datasets

2019-10-25 15:15:35 UTC

the later one has been modified

2019-10-25 15:15:43 UTC

often with no oversight

2019-10-25 15:16:22 UTC

data mixing isnโ€™t inherently wrong it should be avoided but if you know that one data is accurate and the other data is accurate you can mix them. Nothing is wrong with this

2019-10-25 15:16:44 UTC

tbqh I don't care about CO2 levels, it's irrelevant to me. I only care about temp records

2019-10-25 15:17:10 UTC

Why we can observe the green house effect on a small scale that co2 causes

2019-10-25 15:17:56 UTC

it doesn't matter how accurate the data is, if it's coming from an airport or other urban heat island it is entirely irrelevant, not just low quality

2019-10-25 15:18:18 UTC

Earth's atmosphere not small scale though

2019-10-25 15:18:22 UTC

Idk dude co2 levels we calculate arenโ€™t from airports or urban heat islands

2019-10-25 15:18:36 UTC

the temp data is

2019-10-25 15:19:00 UTC

Sure but it proves the green house effect carbon has.

2019-10-25 15:19:19 UTC

only in a container

2019-10-25 15:19:29 UTC

on a small scale

2019-10-25 15:19:45 UTC

Okay so why doesnโ€™t this phenomenon scale?

2019-10-25 15:20:00 UTC

it doesn't account for the multitude of variables in Earth's climate

2019-10-25 15:20:36 UTC

it doesn't account for anything other than TSI

2019-10-25 15:21:46 UTC

and even when it does that, climate science tells us that atmospheric CO2 is more powerful at driving our climate than the sun

2019-10-25 15:21:59 UTC

it doesn't account for high energy particles

2019-10-25 15:22:15 UTC

it doesn't account for magnetosphere effects

2019-10-25 15:22:34 UTC

Sure many of these factors are constant

2019-10-25 15:22:38 UTC

And donโ€™t change

2019-10-25 15:22:42 UTC

At least

2019-10-25 15:22:44 UTC

no.

2019-10-25 15:22:48 UTC

assumption

2019-10-25 15:23:02 UTC

From the human perspective

2019-10-25 15:23:29 UTC

milankovitch cycles

2019-10-25 15:23:29 UTC

Co2 levels thought out history created drastic change in the temperature

2019-10-25 15:23:37 UTC

no

2019-10-25 15:23:42 UTC

We can see this after the time period you talked about

2019-10-25 15:23:50 UTC

it was warm in the 1940s

2019-10-25 15:23:59 UTC

when CO2 was low

2019-10-25 15:24:14 UTC

it was cold in the 60's-70's

2019-10-25 15:24:20 UTC

when CO2 was high

2019-10-25 15:24:44 UTC

except the evidence of these periods is being changed or removed

2019-10-25 15:24:45 UTC

Okay so in a couple years In the 1940s it was warm and in the 70s it was slightly colder so that means the green house effect isnโ€™t real.

2019-10-25 15:25:16 UTC

You are the one cherry picking data

2019-10-25 15:25:24 UTC

rubbish

2019-10-25 15:25:33 UTC

go look for yourself

2019-10-25 15:25:47 UTC

if you can find an untainted source

2019-10-25 15:26:25 UTC

there are emails between climate scientists talking about how problematic the 70's cold period is

2019-10-25 15:26:43 UTC

We can see historical records of how much change the co2 levels change from plants and volcanoes see the drastic change in temperature and see how it changed.

2019-10-25 15:26:50 UTC

and how they can massage the data to better fit the trend they want to show

2019-10-25 15:27:12 UTC

Okay I donโ€™t care about a couple scientist somewhere massaging data

2019-10-25 15:27:39 UTC

I do, when they control the political landscape it's dangerous

2019-10-25 15:28:17 UTC

I mean I donโ€™t care if they with the broader scope of if something is true or not.

2019-10-25 15:28:28 UTC

you never adequately explained how high CO2 levels didn't lead to ever increasing temps

2019-10-25 15:29:25 UTC

Carboniferous period had CO2 levels ~1500ppm and yet temp was 3~12 degrees higher

2019-10-25 15:29:51 UTC

why did the high temps not lead to more CO2 and the runaway effect?

2019-10-25 15:30:54 UTC

it doesn't matter how much time anything has to adapt, your contention is that CO2 produces a temp increase

2019-10-25 15:31:24 UTC

why did this not occurr during the carboniferous and other high CO2 periods?

2019-10-25 15:32:35 UTC

Why didnโ€™t it lead to a runaway effect? Because plants grew because of higher co2 levels and took co2 out of the air

2019-10-25 15:33:11 UTC

you think plants can grow faster than the sun can input energy into the atmosphere?

2019-10-25 15:33:20 UTC

I don't

2019-10-25 15:34:02 UTC

for plants to stop a net increase in temp they wouuld have to lock away CO2 at an alarming rate

2019-10-25 15:34:20 UTC

especially at ~1500ppm

2019-10-25 15:35:05 UTC

What do you mean input energy into a system? co2 levels change equilibriums so temps raise it doesnโ€™t keep trapping energy for ever

2019-10-25 15:35:16 UTC

So energy canโ€™t leave

2019-10-25 15:35:39 UTC

uuhhhh, isn't that what you call the greenhouse effect?

2019-10-25 15:37:26 UTC

if 400ppm co2 will cause a catastrophic rate of temp increase, what rate of temp increase do you think 1500ppm would produce?

2019-10-25 15:37:49 UTC

how would plants even catch up?

2019-10-25 15:38:29 UTC

Catch up with what

2019-10-25 15:38:39 UTC

the rate of temp increase

2019-10-25 15:38:48 UTC

it increases with increasing CO2

2019-10-25 15:39:23 UTC

Do you think if you have 1500ppm of co2 the temperature of earth will keep rising to infinite?

2019-10-25 15:39:38 UTC

no, that would be ridiculous

2019-10-25 15:40:25 UTC

So co2 levels and temperature have a equilibrium.

2019-10-25 15:40:32 UTC

Temperature wonโ€™t just keep increasing

2019-10-25 15:40:44 UTC

To infinity

2019-10-25 15:41:03 UTC

it should get as hot as venus, if climate scientists are to be believed

2019-10-25 15:41:54 UTC

No it shouldnโ€™t Venus is 96% carbon dioxide and has a thicker atmosphere. While 1500ppm is waaaaaay less then what Venus has.

2019-10-25 15:42:13 UTC

We would expect a huge temperature difference and we do

2019-10-25 15:42:36 UTC

I think Venus has 86 million ppm

2019-10-25 15:42:42 UTC

It what it says

2019-10-25 15:42:51 UTC

I've never heard a single climate person talk about equilibriums, it's always about a runaway greenhouse effect

2019-10-25 15:43:06 UTC

Yes I a closed system

2019-10-25 15:43:11 UTC

Iโ€™m a closed system

2019-10-25 15:43:15 UTC

Letโ€™s say a jar

2019-10-25 15:43:26 UTC

The temperature doesnโ€™t increase to infinity

2019-10-25 15:43:33 UTC

If you shine a light on it

2019-10-25 15:43:40 UTC

black body radiation and entropy would like a word

2019-10-25 15:43:53 UTC

it's not a closed system

2019-10-25 15:44:14 UTC

it can be considered closed for some investigations

2019-10-25 15:44:26 UTC

As energy levels increase more energy leaves.

2019-10-25 15:44:38 UTC

Changing co2 changes this

2019-10-25 15:45:05 UTC

Allowing for more energy to stay to a point till more energy starts to leave

2019-10-25 15:45:27 UTC

So the temperature is higher

2019-10-25 15:45:47 UTC

if you continually heat a gas in a container, does it reach an equilibrium, or does it get so hot the pressure increases to the point where the jar explodes?

2019-10-25 15:45:51 UTC

๐Ÿ˜‚

2019-10-25 15:46:28 UTC

@johny1846 The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system

2019-10-25 15:46:39 UTC

Weโ€™ll shine constant light on the container the amount it radiates equals the amount it gains after a while

2019-10-25 15:47:06 UTC

gasses, heat, light etc. all escape the atmosphere

2019-10-25 15:47:45 UTC

I'm done here, it's impossible to debate with someone who is ideologically possessed

2019-10-25 15:50:09 UTC

You can do this experiment yourself. Get a jar start with just air shine a light on it measure the temperature after a while it will reach and equilibrium. Slowly increase the co2 concentrations and see how the equilibrium changes. @Downfall Vision these changes arenโ€™t going to change the temperature as much as changing this equilibrium point

2019-10-25 15:51:19 UTC

"A light" is not equatable to our Sun! FFS

2019-10-25 15:52:11 UTC

im going to put the jar into a fire

2019-10-25 15:52:30 UTC

along with this debate

2019-10-25 15:52:32 UTC

@johny1846 if you then put in some living organisms which soak up CO2 and exhaust Oxygen what happens?

2019-10-25 15:53:02 UTC

also what control measures are in place for this "experiment"?

2019-10-25 15:53:24 UTC

how can you be sure that the light level coming from the light to the jar is comparable to the light coming from our sun to earth?

2019-10-25 15:54:13 UTC

Sure having living organisms fuck up the equilibrium point they will increase the co2 levels and decrease.

2019-10-25 15:54:20 UTC

Them

2019-10-25 15:54:34 UTC

So your experiment is meaningless in terms of earth's climate

3,636 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/15 | Next