Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #50 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
the planet doesn't give two ***** about us, global warming was already claimed a hoax to try to get people to buy green energy stuff, WE'RE the ones ****** , not the planet.
User avatar #62 to #50 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
Okay jesus ******* christ i phrased it wrong funnyjunk get off my dick.

Global warming is real, But the whole "HOLY **** THE WORLDS ICECAPS ARE MELTING AND EVERYONES GOING TO ******* DIE BUY GREEN ENERGY" definition by the media is a hoax.

now stop ******* commenting about it.
User avatar #57 to #50 - luismamontes (11/17/2012) [-]
Please do tell how global warming was claimed a hoax. I just want to see you try to explain and back up one of the most stupid comments I have ever seen.
User avatar #61 to #57 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
The world is warming, but its not as dangerous as people are making it. Earth has warming and cooling periods, and why i said it could be considered a hoax is so that the green energy industry could get a **** ton of money from people buying completely inefficient energy compared to carbon energy just because they were told some exagerated definition of global warming.
User avatar #65 to #61 - luismamontes (11/17/2012) [-]
First of all, the problem with global warming is that it's a long term problem. The planet won't heat up dramatically, but instead very, very gradually. That trend in cooling that people point out is actually a line drawn directly from 1998 to 2008, it was not a year-by-year trend line. Thus, the result is that 2008 was cooler than 1998 because in 1998 there was the biggest El Niño in over s long time, which caused an increase in temperature. In conclusion, global warming is completely real and will affect the Earth in the long run.
#68 to #65 - swedishassassin (11/17/2012) [-]
Since I know that was you who thumbed me down.
User avatar #73 to #68 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
i thumbed you up to equal it out.
User avatar #69 to #68 - luismamontes (11/17/2012) [-]
I havent' thumbed anybody down, but I'll thumb you up so you feel better.
User avatar #59 to #57 - swedishassassin (11/17/2012) [-]
Over the last 180 months (15 years) the atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase at a rapid pace, but the globe (land and ocean) has cooled during that same time.

For the 15-year period ending September 30, 2012, the world experienced a very slight cooling trend of -0.12°C per century.

In contrast, for the 15-year period ending September 1997, the globe was warming at a +1.18°C pace.

...there.
User avatar #56 to #50 - certifiedidiot (11/17/2012) [-]
I do believe that about 85% of the worlds scientists says that global warming is real
User avatar #58 to #56 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
Then let me rephrase that, I don't think global warming is as dangerous as its made.
The world was once a giant ******* iceball according to the ice-age that scientists also said happened.

So if you think about it im guessing that the world has heating and cooling periods which most scientists also agree on. This whole post is just turning into a ********* .
User avatar #71 to #58 - Harkonnen (11/17/2012) [-]
Yes the earth goes through cycles, but the problem is they're usually MUCH more gradual than what we're experiencing today. This gradual change allows for natural selection to do its thang and evolution takes place, creating species made to live in this new environment. If the change is not gradual enough, natural selection doesn't get a chance to do its thang, therefore, extinction
User avatar #66 to #58 - certifiedidiot (11/17/2012) [-]
You seem to have a very hostile approach to science

And it's a political topic, of course it's a ********* , the comic is made to raise thought and awareness, not humor.
User avatar #52 to #50 - Harkonnen (11/17/2012) [-]
You, my friend, are scientifically retarded.
User avatar #54 to #52 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
how is that retarded? Just because the pollution is causing acid rain and MIGHT eventually lead to the downfall of humanity doesn't mean that the entire ******* planet is going to explode.

Humans are just fleas to earth, and like a dog it will shake us off like a bad cold.
User avatar #70 to #54 - luismamontes (11/17/2012) [-]
It's not that the Earh can't recuperate, it's the fact that all species are vulnerable to climate change. When their environment is afected, either by rising climates, lower climates, or contamination, they become succeptable to exctintion. If one species dissapears, a domino effect starts and even more species dissapear. This in turn affects every single part of life on our planet.
User avatar #74 to #70 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
either way if all animal life on the planet becomes extinct the planet will remain, and plants should still be here right?
User avatar #76 to #74 - luismamontes (11/17/2012) [-]
Plants are equally succeptable to the factors I explained, and many depend on animals for reproduction and other symbiotic relationships like mineral recycling.
User avatar #63 to #54 - Harkonnen (11/17/2012) [-]
I agree but that's not what you said in the first post, life will go on (unless it gets really out of hand like it did on Venus), and whether the human lineage survives depends on our genetic variation. But in your first statement you said it was a hoax. If it is, its the most elaborate and scientifically supported conspiracy of all time. Graduate students I know are doing climate change research and their results are not contradictory to any of the claims made by the grander scientific community. They don't know any politicians, they aren't funded by solar companies or anything of that nature.

but let's say it was a hoax, is it really that destructive a hoax? One which says let's put our money towards energy sources which are clean and don't destroy the environment with pollution, oil spills, etc.? Let's say CO2 being a greenhouse gas is something made up by Al Gore, and not a fact determined by physical chemistry, should we keep damaging marine environments by giving tax breaks to oil companies and removing regulations on how they should extract and store their oil?
User avatar #67 to #63 - herpaherp (11/17/2012) [-]
Yea, i realized i miss-stated what i meant.

Switching energy sources is a good idea, carbon can only go so far but i don't think that green energy is such a good idea since its not nearly as efficient.

I would think that something like cold fusion, nuclear, or even Nikola Tesla's method of obtaining energy would be much more efficient.
User avatar #86 to #67 - stallwallwriter (11/18/2012) [-]
Oil and gas are like the redbull of energy sources, so yes, anything else is going to be less efficient in terms of energy output, but more efficient in terms of not increasing global temperature and running out just as our usage of them is increasing leading to price jumps, protests, and political unrest.
Cold fusion would be great if it ever became feasible; I'm much less confident about nuclear. Yes, the actual facilities themselves aren't likely to undergo a fukushima-daichi situation often, but we have no real solution for dealing with the horrifically toxic waste it produces. We're going to have to turn to hydro, solar, biomass, wind, and many other systems, depending on the region.
 Friends (0)