> "Nature will take care of itself — nature doesn't need people, people need nature to survive,"
> "The planet will be OK, there just won't be any damn people on it."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/harrison-ford-hits-out-at-global-inaction-on-climate-change/7015380
I care what an old celebrity with zero credibility says about climate change why?
>>8046
You can be a washed up celebrity, an old man, a young child, your local town dog catcher, etc. - Isn't what he said just plain common sense?!
>>8047
No it's not common sense, at all. Climate science is extremely complicated science.
>>8048
It really isn't.
>>8052
>predicting and understanding how millions of tons of gas and water interact physically on a global scale isn't complicated
Um alright
>>8053
Half of it is just the temperature. The other half: cloud coverage.
>>8071
That's one aspect of it.
>>8072
By all means, tell us anything we don't know about the topic. We're all ears...
>>8074
I encourage you to do your own research and not believe what some celebrity says in the news. I'm not an expert either.
>>8044
Reminds me about George Carlin on planet. Too lazy to look for it, but you can find it on youtube.
>>8075
> says there's more to the topic
> doesn't want to enlighten the audience when asked what more there was
mmm'k
>>8083
Instead of staying ignorant on the topic of climate change, why don't you read up on it yourself?
>>8084
No, you shouldn't say a thing if you can't back a thing up. I know it's slow here but we're not that desperate for responses that we need to accept anybody's empty rhetoric as informed dialogue when it's not.
>>8053
it's actually very simple. radiation from the sun hits earths surface. the heat generates radiation that is reflected back to earths surface by greenhouse gases
This is an interesting read regarding the climate change debate:
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/
>>8108
Did you know that the amount of radiation given by the sun varies?
>>8046
Because it's probably the only truthful statement about climate change.
>>8044
What he says is valid. He doesn't go into any details about solving the issue of what exactly causes it but what he says isn't wrong.
Until humans can travel in space and colonize planets Earth has to be taken care of.
>>8044
As far as I'm aware global warming is an inevitable thing that will bring around another ice age to end the majority of life on earth. However, the way we're going about this will bring the ice age a lot quicker than anticipated. We need to focus on changing the sources of our energy to clean renewable technology, which i believe is possible at this stage. We are nowhere near ready to begin colonising other planets, so we must learn to preserve our own first.
Or you can start preparing for the longest winter of your existence.
>>8374
As far as I'm aware the next ice age has already been canceled due to global warming.
>>8048
>Climate science is extremely complicated science.
You're using a word "science" there. I'm not sure you know what it really means.
E.g. Where do you keep the "control" second Earth? How do you isolate your experiment to a single variable? Etc.
>>8044
I just want everyone to know, I live in Florida, and the winter REALLY should be colder. It's in the fucking 70's and 80's in December, WTF. I've lived here my whole life, born n raised and it's fucking weird this year
>>8454
http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/climate-change
It's not really the change of temperature (which is very low). The biggest sign for climate change that you can see is the amount of hurricanes.
>>8092
>we're not that desperate for responses that we need to accept anybody's empty rhetoric as informed dialogue when it's not.
Jee, like Mr. Han Solo's empty rhetoric? Dumb ass lefty.
>>8423
Not this other anon but please, all science is not experimental; and all models need not to be reduced to a single variable to be relevant.
Eg. Astrophysics, evolutionary biology, theoretical neuroscience, climate science (economy may fit this list).
>>8506
Economy is an excellent example of a pseudo science because nobody can ever predict anything and people don't even agree on other people's result.
It's less a science and more an advertisement.
>company X is going to do well next year. Buy more X stocks!
>>8466
>Dumb ass lefty
go back to /pol/
>>8046
Because it's the only way they can appeal to the masses to shove their "consensus" down everyone's throat.
>mfw reading this thread
>people call climate "science" a "science" and say it's simple and we have it all figured out
>>8528
lefties are dumb as dirt though
>>8663
That's if righties are to be believed.
>>8670
>left
>right
>using a political spectrum from the 17th century
>>8082
What if the world made humans just because it wanted some plastic?
