{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/17/2013 9:09:30 AM
25
-
>UN >Unbiased opinions Pick one.
-
I trust the UN to be one of the more unbiased sources out there, considering its international. The poles moving by 40km a year seems way to drastic to be actually happening now. And even the magnetic field weakened to the point of being unable to deflect solar UV rays, the ozone layer would absorb most of it. If not, that would likely due to human activity reducing the ozone layer, still making it our fault.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 11/17/2013 9:40:25 AM>Trust me, UN is biased... >The rest is your amateur speculation. I use to think the same thing, but clearly carbon emissions and global temperatures do not correlate. But the Earth and Sun's field, are perfectly correlated. We're in a state of cooling, I highly doubt it's a coincidence that the sun is simultaneously weakening. And during the time we were warming, the Sun too was strengthening. Not to mention that other planets are cooling and heating along with Earth, I doubt Mars' and Venus' climate change is man-made too?
-
Edited by Raptorkid24: 11/17/2013 10:20:03 AMFirst of all, what is the UN biased towards? They're not a nation or political party. Second, I've seen dozens of graphs at school showing clear correlations between carbon dioxide levels and earths temperature. The sun isn't 'weakening', so much just not throwing out so much solar flares. The earth is due a short glacial period, but it hasn't arrived yet which is the issue. As for other planets, of course their climate changes naturally. They have vastly different atmospheres and most lack magnetic poles. You can't really compare it to earths.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 11/17/2013 11:14:09 AMWhatever floats your boat bro. All the excuses you threw out were debunked and explained in the OP video.
-
Edited by Raptorkid24: 11/17/2013 11:15:44 AMNot really no. They kinda still stand. And really, who is the UN biased towards? I'm really curious.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 11/17/2013 11:27:37 AMIf you believe the most powerful handful of bureaucrats in the world aren't biased, that's fine. But let's save this discussion about globalist organization for another time, bc I'd go off into a tangent regarding this subject. It's pretty late over here, and I'm fairly tired.
-
Alright then. Im sure they are biased in away, I was just wondering to which biased to what. But, yeah we'll stop then.
-
Ahh, shoot. Actually, I left my car on when I left Mars.
-
The UN is a complete joke. Humans aren't reducing Ozone.
-
Edited by Raptorkid24: 11/17/2013 10:59:48 AMThey were, with CFC products being left lying around.
-
That has never been proven to significantly affect the Ozone layer.
-
It kinda has. They wouldn't be banned otherwise.
-
No, it hasn't. They were banned out of a false fear. The "hole" in the Ozone was proven to be a natural occurrence and closed by itself to the size of a dime.
-
Okay what? What proof is there for this? And don't you think the major governments would've figured this out by now?
-
They have figured it out, this is general knowledge which you should have known before attempting a debate. I recommend educating yourself before discussing the matter further. http://www.livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrinks-record-low.html
-
Your source stated that the banning of CFC's has led to the reduction in the hole, thus supporting my point :) Is there another source you would like to use for your case?
-
Not at all, it is also a natural occurrence. We know the hole has always expanded and shrunk on its own. There are plenty of sources that support this.
-
But not at this accelerated rate.
-
According to whom?
-
Most scientists.
-
That is false.
-
Way to back up that claim.
-
It is unnecessary to disprove that which has never been proven.
-
Lol ok.
