Sure. Obviously what I posted is a simplification of the theory. I’m not a climate scientist, I’m just trying to explain it as a layman so that another layman can understand it.
I took a look at realclimate.org. First of all, I was actually nauseated.
Second, the only evidence I could find there is that the earth is warming and it coincides with the increase in carbon dioxide.
It also coincides with the downfall of of the nazis and commies, as well as coinciding with the increase of tolerance in Americans. Therefore I suggest we all become communist, rascist, sexist, atheist, ageist, nazis in order to stave off global warming.
One of the leading pieces of “evidence” Is the rising sea levels. This is purportedly caused by Ice melting.
take an unopened bottle of fluid and put it in the freezer. Wait two-three hours. Take it out. You will notice the bottle has ruptured.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is because water EXPANDS when frozen. Therefore it SHRINKS when melted.
If you use google earth you will also notice that icebergs float. Therefore when they melt, the water part moves away, and the floaty part comes down, making it so no water is displaced.
We also only have reliable temperature records for the last few hundred years. It could be that it was much hotter than this a thousand years ago.
Also, To answer your question, I consume a good deal of food (being a teenager) and live in a house that uses, I believe, petrol. I do not control our thermostat, alas, so I can’t say how much of that I consume. Obviously more than I want to, as my ideal temperature is around 50 degrees.
Also, for you environmentalists, I EAT RED MEAT. (waits for gasps of horror)
The reason is that I’m diabetic and it’s really the lowest carb food. That plus it tastes good.
Also, have you ever LOOKED at a cow? The seem to be designed for eating.
Now. All I want in the way of evidence is a detailed scientific article on how Co2 is a greenhouse gas that is strong enough to contain that much heat, and shows exactly where the humans stand in causing Co2. It should also explain how clouds and the sun affect all these.
If you can show me this, and prove that it correlates with global warming, I’ll admit it exists.
EDIT: Just read your latest posts. I have to admit, it adds up.
I must ask, however, how other factors come into affect.
Also, thanks for being patient with me. At this point most people explode and call me a retard who doesn’t know third grade science.
BMSMG please respond to my previous post - I posted exactly what you asked for. Which point do you find unconvincing?
Edit - some people on this forum pointed out that whenever I debate I usually just flip out and insult people. so being more neutral while debating is something I’m working on.
Warming is affected by many other factors, but we have to discount any factors which are constant, since the rate of warming is increasing, and this increase needs to correspond with an increase in some warming factor. The most drastic increase is CO2.
so what do reckon the motive is for the huge conspiracy in mainstream science to fake climate change
Why do you say that like it’s a bad thing? 
As for the point you were trying to make in that paragraph… you’re an idiot.
He was not being serious, or at least i hope he was not
So, you need to know the fundamentals of basic chemistry? Heat comes from sunlight. Heat hits the ground and is reflected into space…unless blocked by something: CO2[/SIZE] (amongst others). It is then reflected back down and cannot escape into space. As more heat enters the system and cannot escape, it begins to heat up.
That being said, greenhouse gases are a NECESSARY thing for this planet…else we’d not exist.
O_o D: 
Seriously?! That’s your response?
Are you seriously suggesting that expanding ice is causing the sea levels to rise?
:facepalm:
There is ice ON LAND. As that ice turns to water, that water falls into the ocean, raising water levels.
Actually, we have reliable records for much longer than that.
How about what you do with the waste materials? That is, containers for food or other products such as boxes, trays, wraps, bags, etc.
You’ll also be surprised to know that I too love my red meat. 
I tried, but you got “nauseated” when I did.
The problem is, you don’t know third grade science. But that’s okay. You are willing to learn and that’s a start.
The difference between CO2 and things like a fall in communism is that CO2 traps heat and large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could trap lots of heat, Communists however have nothing to do with heat and therefor couldn’t ahve anythign to do with climate change.
Wait what? 15th most common cause of carbon dioxide??? Sauce plz.
Obviously the big deal in the modern world is that we are destroying the earth. Of course, the average person either doesn’t care, doesn’t understand, or doesn’t believe in most of what science claims is happening to the environment thus nothing gets done. Obviously the best way to motivate people to do what you want is two things:
- Somehow convincing them not doing this will severely harm them physically in some way or another. (In this case death via destruction of earth)
- Somehow convincing them not doing this will severely harm them financially by decreasing their income or increasing their expenses.
Number 1 applies here in that by attempting to over-exaggerate the problem by somehow implying total destruction will occur without change in daily routine, scientists and environmentalists are attempting to convince the “ignorant” public that they need to change now.
[COLOR=‘Red’]Note: I don’t actually believe Global Warming is a crazy nut-job conspiracy that’s being pulled completely out of a hat, this is just a motive I can think of that would lead to such a conspiracy.
I concede.
I move the global warming status from “Nope” to “inconclusive”
Before you start, One of my family members has a masters in meteorology plus a bachelor’s in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and music. He also claims it’s complete bunk.
Therefore I probably won’t ever be entirely convinced, and this is probably as far as any of us is going to get.
I’m suddenly nostalgic for the old days where we were sure it was going to be a NUCLEAR apocalypse.
And to answer your question, I try to conserve power and gas, plus I recycle whenever possible, though I reuse more.
And my point is that no, it’s NOT the ice that’s causing the sea levels to rise.
Now, can we either get back on topic or- you know what? Fuck it. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE THIS GODDAMN THREAD!
Meteorology != Climatology
What do you think is causing the sea levels to rise?
(It’s funny that you think it’s inconclusive with the wealth of information and evidence at your very fingertips. We’ve shown you were to look; you just have to look. We’ve given you the evidence. There’s not much more we can do. We’ve done everything you ask and you still think it’s inconclusive. Unbelievable.)
Yeah, but it’s your word against a climatologist.
No, it’s the word of that one meteorologist you know against the word of thousands of climatologists, who are more qualified to judge in this matter to begin with.
The reason melting ice causes sea levels to rise is because an extremely large amount of the melting ice is above sea level, so when the ice melts, it all flows into the ocean and makes the sea level rise.
@dinothrasher, I do not believe the biggest problem is the average person not conserving, but mainly,
a) CEOs of big companies don’t give a shit about the environment and pay politicians so that they won’t either
b) The world is ridiculously overpopulated
So not only should we try to convince the average Joe to conserve, but also try to elect and support politicians who aren’t afraid to kick some rich ass to get things done (not Obama) and to help people understand that having 4+ children is fucking up the environment.
:facepalm:
I’m pretty sure it is, considering that the name STEAMpunk is derived from the steam-powered technology used in the genre.
Clearly Bmsmg knows what he’s talking about
Maybe bmsmg is right on this one, Fallout 3 definitely doesn’t strike me as being victorian. It feel a lot more to me like the 1950s or 40s. Just because the name is derived from something victorian doesn’t mean it is only victorian.
Fallout 3 isn’t steampunk. That’s why.
Steampunk Definition on Wikipedia
Steampunk Definition at Dictionary.com
Steampunk Definition from Answers.com
Fallout may be cyberpunk. But not steampunk. And steampunk IS supposed to be connected with the Victorian times. Bmsmg obviously doesn’t know shit about what he is talking of.
From answers.com:
[by analogy to cyberpunk] a genre of science fiction with a historical setting in the nineteenth century characterized by technologies extrapolated from the science of that era, but which were not invented at that time. Hence steampunker, steampunkish.
* 1987 K. W. Jeter Locus (letter) (Apr.) № 57/2: Personally, I think Victorian fantasies are going to be the next big thing, as long as we can come up with a fitting collective term for Powers, Blaylock and myself. Something based on the appropriate technology of that era; like "steam-punks," perhaps.
* 1987 J. Blaylock Locus (May) № 57/1: There's railroad trains, a lot of steam-driven stuff, but that's about it. More "steam punk," I suppose.
* 1991 Locus (May) № 66/3: The Difference Engine is not steampunk, because it is a work of hard sf.
* 1995 M. Dirda Bound to Please (2005) № 124: In a scene that could make a steam-punk short story, the master of nonsense even visits Charles Babbage, the great pioneer of the computer.
* 2001 Interzone (Sept.) № 64/3: Kirkus Reviews said of his previous book: "If Arthur Conan Doyle and H. P. Lovecraft had collaborated on a novel, the result might have been like this"; steampunker Tim Powers also offers some words of praise.
* 2004 P. Di Filippo Asimov's SF (Apr.–May) № 230/2: Now, [...] he's turned his hand to a steampunkish adventure, one that summons up the glory days of television's The Wild, Wild West.
* 2005 SF Weekly (San Francisco) (Mar. 16–22) № 40/2: Sci-fi readers call this type of thing "steampunk," a genre characterized by advanced technology powered by old-fashioned methods — usually steam engines — in the style of Jules Verne or H.G. Wells.
From Wikipedia:
Other examples of steampunk contain alternate history-style presentations of “the path not taken” of such technology as dirigibles, analog computers, or digital mechanical computers (such as Charles Babbage’s Analytical engine); these frequently are presented in an idealized light, or with a presumption of functionality.
From knowledgerush.com:
Steampunk is a subgenre of cyberpunk science fiction with dystopian, noir themes usually in an anachronistic Victorian or quasi-Victorian alternate history setting.
Yes, steampunk is often Victorian, but not always.
However, in the case of fallout 3, I would have to say it’s cyberpunk with a steampunk feel.
Unlike global warming, when it comes to sci-fi, I know what I’m talking about. Don’t fuck with me.
You clearly do not, as all of your examples point to Steampunk being part of the Victorian era.
And I don’t think Fallout belongs in either “punk” genre. To me the 50s deserves its own sci-fi era term, perhaps “Retro” or “Nuclear”.