Climate Change... Pass this along. "It's a hoax."

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I'm not going to spend much time on something you can find very easy.

Oh, I already have. Linked to it before, so it's in my post history somewhere.

You expect people to look through your post history?

No! That'd be cheating.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Edit: Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm in no hurry.

It's on the people claiming the experts are wrong. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of science for ages.

You sure are quick to label me. I'm a pro-choice anti-drug-war anti-war-war atheistic free-market classical liberal. Says a lot that the Dems have lost me.

If you insist on being spoon-fed, I might get around to it, I might not. Walls of text take time to do properly. But I do hope you do some research on your own.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I have the majority of scientists on my side while you have right wing hacks and the fossil fuel industry.

The "majority" is not the same as the "Truth", at least not necessarily. So having the "majority" on "your side" doesn't mean anything, at all. History should've tought you that.

"

Feins_ wrote:

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I have the majority of scientists on my side while you have right wing hacks and the fossil fuel industry.

The "majority" is not the same as the "Truth", at least not necessarily. So having the "majority" on "your side" doesn't mean anything, at all. History should've tought you that.

While you are right about that, it's a bit different when the majority is one of scientific people that base their claims on studies and data. When the vast majority of those that believe that the climate change is fake are basing their claims on the words of people that aren't even in the field of study of climate/meteo, it kind of, you know, make them look dumb.

It's entirely possible that the scientific consensus is wrong, wouldn't be the first time it happened but with the extremely high amount of data that's being collected everywhere and the evidence of human activity deteriorating the environment on a small scale (cities ie), it's very VERY unlikely that they are wrong.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Feins_ wrote:

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I have the majority of scientists on my side while you have right wing hacks and the fossil fuel industry.

The "majority" is not the same as the "Truth", at least not necessarily. So having the "majority" on "your side" doesn't mean anything, at all. History should've tought you that.

While you are right about that, it's a bit different when the majority is one of scientific people that base their claims on studies and data. When the vast majority of those that believe that the climate change is fake are basing their claims on the words of people that aren't even in the field of study of climate/meteo, it kind of, you know, make them look dumb.

It's entirely possible that the scientific consensus is wrong, wouldn't be the first time it happened but with the extremely high amount of data that's being collected everywhere and the evidence of human activity deteriorating the environment on a small scale (cities ie), it's very VERY unlikely that they are wrong.

You think predictive modeling which greatly simplifies the process by which a planet creates and regulates its atmosphere is VERY unlikely to be wrong? Stated differently, you think a simplified predictive model that, by definition, relies on researcher assumptions (which may very well be arbitrary as they differ from one researcher to the next) is VERY unlikely to be wrong?

k.

There are two parts to this issue: the scientific part and the political part. Even if the scientific part is 100% true, it still doesn't mean that the political part will be effective in solving the scientific part.

Do you guys really think that taxing the shit out of the 1st world and giving money to the 3rd world will solve "global warming" or "pollution"? Giving money to people that will use that money to multiply even faster will "save Earth"? If anything it will raise the demand for cheap & practical power, electricity, fossil fuel consumption...

Any sort of "countering human impact on the environment" program, which doesn't include severely limiting the growth of the global population, is a scam.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Feins_ wrote:

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I have the majority of scientists on my side while you have right wing hacks and the fossil fuel industry.

The "majority" is not the same as the "Truth", at least not necessarily. So having the "majority" on "your side" doesn't mean anything, at all. History should've tought you that.

While you are right about that, it's a bit different when the majority is one of scientific people that base their claims on studies and data. When the vast majority of those that believe that the climate change is fake are basing their claims on the words of people that aren't even in the field of study of climate/meteo, it kind of, you know, make them look dumb.

It's entirely possible that the scientific consensus is wrong, wouldn't be the first time it happened but with the extremely high amount of data that's being collected everywhere and the evidence of human activity deteriorating the environment on a small scale (cities ie), it's very VERY unlikely that they are wrong.

"

Feins_ wrote:

..., at least not necessarily.

Anyway...

I stated in my post above that i don't doubt the numbers or the fact that temperatures are rising. I only have doubts about the CAUSES.

You don't think it is rather curious that almost every scientist deviating from the general consensus, "climate change" is cause by carbon (which is essentially plant "food") emissions i.e. by humans, is ridiculed, shunned, ostracised, loses his/her job or has his/her career destroyed? From my experience, people sure about knowing the truth don't shunn from a debate, or try to silence thier opponent, in fact, they welcome open debate to proof thier point. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Open debate?!

If you take a close look, that is obviously not the case, which seems to be the general trend now. One only has to look at the whole "gender" - ideology nonsense. Don't ask any questions just believe what we tell you, even if it defies reason, logic and reality.

Does science mean we silence people, who come to different conclusions than us, for the supposed "greater good". Or would we engage in dialoge in order to make sure we are on the right track and we didn't miss anything?


Especially if you listen to the rhetoric which is used to advance this "agenda" one should be sceptic.

So one has to ask: is there an ulterior motive?

"

Feins_ wrote:

Anyway...

I stated in my post above that i don't doubt the numbers or the fact that temperatures are rising. I only have doubts about the CAUSES.

You don't think it is rather curious that almost every scientist deviating from the general consensus, "climate change" is cause by carbon (which is essentially plant "food") emissions i.e. by humans, is ridiculed, shunned, ostracised, lose thier jobs or have thier carrers destroyed? From my experience, people sure about knowing the truth don't shunn from a debate, in fact, they welcome it to proof thier point. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Open debate?!

If you take a close look, that is obviously not the case, which seems to be the general trend now. One only has to look at the whole "gender" - ideology nonsense. Don't ask any questions just believe what we tell you, even if it defies reason, logic and reality.

So one has to ask: is there an ulterior motive?

If the questions have already been refuted, why do people keep asking the same questions? Do they really not know or just refuse to accept it?

"

morbo wrote:

Any sort of "countering human impact on the environment" program, which doesn't include severely limiting the growth of the global population, is a scam.

What about severely increasing the growth of the global plant population? Is the problem the carbon footprint, or the ratio of carbon footprint to oxygen footprint?

Hmm... Ecoalarmism, left-wingers, urban areas... I think I found a correlation. Hard to convince woodsmen that carbon in the atmosphere will bring on the apocalypse.

"

morbo wrote:

There are two parts to this issue: the scientific part and the political part. Even if the scientific part is 100% true, it still doesn't mean that the political part will be effective in solving the scientific part.

Do you guys really think that taxing the shit out of the 1st world and giving money to the 3rd world will solve "global warming" or "pollution"? Giving money to people that will use that money to multiply even faster will "save Earth"? If anything it will raise the demand for cheap & practical power, electricity, fossil fuel consumption...

Any sort of "countering human impact on the environment" program, which doesn't include severely limiting the growth of the global population, is a scam.

No it will increase global warming. You see when third world get money to build and burns tires to fire furnaces lays waste to rain forests to plant crops with new tractors given to them and otherwise get into industrial age global warming will go through the roof.

No good deed goes unpunished.

But it's not about that. It's about elites taking 90% off the top of tax. kinda like rebuilding Haiti which was never rebuilt. Ask Mrs Clinton and her criminal brother where that money went.

"

deathflower wrote:

If the questions have already been refuted, why do people keep asking the same questions? Do they really not know or just refuse to accept it?

Temperatures are rising, that's essentially it. Everything else, the WHY, is a theory, just like evolution is still a theory, a good one, in fact, the best one we have at the moment, with lots of "evidence", for lack of a better word, to support it, but it still is a THEORY. That's why we call it "Evolutionary Theory". Same applies to "global warming".

But i am curious to see the definitve proof that carbon emissions cause "global warming".

Carbon, which is the basis for almost every life form on this planet, which plants need to grow...yeah...

There are far more dangerous things to worry about which could really have a devastating effect on the planet, nuclear waste for example or Methane.