Climate Change... Pass this along. "It's a hoax."
" I'm sorry you don't know what a theory is, instead of spending money on supporter packs why don't you get your mom and father to hire you a tutor. Some academia in your system would help. "Another... Solwitch thread." AST
Current Games: :::City Skylines:::Elite Dangerous::: Division 2 "...our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong." -Adam Bear | |
" A science denier and a known bullshitter thinks he has any credibility on anything? Probably shouldn't call someone else a child while throwing a tantrum. | |
"I find this phrase very interesting from a psycholinguistics* perspective. Science is best understood as a way of making claims such that the process to independently verify such claims is included as part of the argument supporting such claims; alternatively, science can be thought of as the independent verification of such claims. Therefore, "science denier" would seem to be one who doesn't believe in the value of independent verification (perhaps claiming it to be impossible to independently verify). But wouldn't "science abstainer" or "science persecutor" fit better? Science is a practice, not a faith. Who "denies" sexual intercourse out of wedlock? It's simply not the right word. In any case, this is never the way I see the phrase used; instead, I see it leveled against those who challenge the sacred cows of ecoalarmism. Essentially, "science denier" means "heretic." True science welcomes heretics, as it can answer them both empirically and individually... or give them a forum with which to answer everyone else in the same manner. I do not see much science in the great climate change controversy. Important conversations, yes; experiments, well, those are things ecoalarmists consider best forgotten. The closest approximation is to take the climate models of decades ago and see if they still hold up; a few have, but all the ecoalarmists' favorites have this annoying habit of proving more apocalyptic than reality. You do dishonor to science by ensconcing it in the mantle of religion. * Technically not the right word, but you know what I mean. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jun 5, 2017, 9:36:11 PM
|
|
" He makes a claim puts forth no proof and gets the most basic of things wrong. He doesn't want a real conversation on the subject. You get offended by my use of science denier but use ecoalarmist? I have the majority of scientists on my side while you have right wing hacks and the fossil fuel industry. | |
"Never said it was offensive. More awkward. Slightly cringey. The hypocrisy with which you use it is slightly offensive, but that's different. I don't care who has whom on which side. If you don't get that, then you don't get science. Show me a climate predicting model from before 2007 that is still accurate. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
I'm not going to spend much time on something you can find very easy. Are you really all the way back to global warming isn't happening? Most would say that's not even a debate anymore. I thought the new right wing talking point was that humans aren't causing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90 Last edited by SnowCrash on Jun 5, 2017, 10:28:34 PM
| |
"Oh, I already have. Linked to it before, so it's in my post history somewhere. My point is that you haven't done any significant research and that you're parroting the talking points in ignorance. Edit: Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm in no hurry. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jun 5, 2017, 10:53:58 PM
|
|
|
OFC its a hoax to get more billions for billionaire.
We cant even take care of our own and we gonna save earth? get a grip WTFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Jun 5, 2017, 11:02:48 PM
| |
" You expect people to look through your post history? " I could just as easily say the same about you. You've got nothing to back up anything you say like all your posts. " It's on the people claiming the experts are wrong. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of science for ages. | |
|
I think it is quite hard to deny that the global temperatures are rising, if you trust the numbers, that is. The question is why.
That the concept of "climate change" is just being used as a business model is also obvious to anyone, unless you prefer to be ignorant and self righteous (most eco-fanatics are, unfortunately) I recently saw an interesting documentary about the magnetic field of the earth. Scientists observed increasing instability and shifts in the field. Some of them think it might be possible that the earth might shift pols (magnetic pols) soon, which was something like a conspiracy theory a decade ago. Who knows?!? Maybe it is related? Maybe it is a natural cycle, like the "Little Ice Age" that occurred after the "Medieval Warm Period" around the 13th century?!? My point being, there is so much we don't know yet, so it is always good to keep an open mind and entertain all sorts of possibilities. Especially when it comes to a subject like this where so many variables are involved. And when politicians (i.e. governments) promote or propagate something, always ask yourself: "Cui bono?" Qvis contra nos ?
|
