Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People who are likely to head these global warming denial campaigns are privileged. They only probably have 30 more years to live anyway. They could care less about what happens to the younger generation when there's nothing for them to care about.
But, so long as people are wrapped up in the next i-phone or next app to download, they could care less.. sheer ignorance. lol
People who head the global warming cabal are in the same boat who are trying to cash in on the ignorance of the youth they are trying to scare so they can live the high life on the wallet of the younger generation.
People who are likely to head these global warming denial campaigns are privileged. They only probably have 30 more years to live anyway. They could care less about what happens to the younger generation when there's nothing for them to care about.
But, so long as people are wrapped up in the next i-phone or next app to download, they could care less.. sheer ignorance. lol
Brilliantly deduced line of reasoning. You are a credit to your position.
Hi I work for the fossil fuel industry, and I reject science. I appeal to low information Americans who reject science too. We always vote Republican, because they reject science too (although they get paid to)
List of common fallacies and attacks by a CAGW activist who lacks the ability to discuss the science:
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Hi I work for the fossil fuel industry,...
Accuse your opposition of being paid by the oil industry so you can dismiss any content they provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
and I reject science.
Bolster your own personal position by claiming you are scientific and all who object to your superior scientific understanding are anti-science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
I appeal to low information Americans who reject science too.
Associate all who do not accept your position as being uninformed and anti-science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
We always vote Republican, because they reject science too (although they get paid to)
Insert political position to promote political agenda and associate all who are of such political persuasion as being of the same anti-science position. Oh, and don't forget to add they are all paid by oil as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Have a nice day!
Feign a polite witty dismissal so as to solidify your civil superiority and make you appear reasonable.
Amusing. A bit pathetic though, but amusing.
Personally, I would have gone with "yse all dum dum heds!", it achieves the same level of intellectual discourse and it... its less typing to boot.
I'm surprised this thread is still going on. The study was a joke in the first page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
List of common fallacies and attacks by a CAGW activist who lacks the ability to discuss the science:
Bolster your own personal position by claiming you are scientific and all who object to your superior scientific understanding are anti-science.
Associate all who do not accept your position as being uninformed and anti-science.
Well, those are the three points said in the exact same way so lets group them for expediancy.
There have been many challenges to global warming, and not a single one has stood up to any peer review at all. Very few even have any data at all, such as zero data in the article provided by the OP. Challenging evidence with raving doesn't work in reality.
What has been provided would fail a high school mathamatics course. Ross McKitrick thinks average temperatures cannot be calculated, and doesn't know the difference between radians and degrees in temp in his criticism. Steve McIntyre's entire position is deleting data from papers (like NASA's Jim Hansen) and claiming they made things up, as part of a global socialist conspiracy where NASA takes over the world. Edward Wegman lied and falsified so much he got fired even from an institution that denied climate change.
If people have scientific data they can provide it and the scientific community will change their minds. Only if it's true, verifiable, and correct. You can't lie, provide no evidence, and can't provide true data to people and expect them to take your claims to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Accuse your opposition of being paid by the oil industry so you can dismiss any content they provide.
Insert political position to promote political agenda and associate all who are of such political persuasion as being of the same anti-science position. Oh, and don't forget to add they are all paid by oil as well.
Well, I haven't found any political figure who publically denies climate change, or any funded study, that isn't shown to have significant backing by a company in the fossil fuels. It's a fact of life. I don't think it is immediate grounds for dismissal. I think that the data speaks for itself no matter who publishes it.
If your only reason is because you say so then you are out of luck. The track record of climate science done by fossil fuel companies so far amounts to zero. Provide real, accurate, truthful data and you will be listened to. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Feign a polite witty dismissal so as to solidify your civil superiority and make you appear reasonable.
It's not feigning, it's just reality. You aren't hated, you are just wrong. Provide good, accurate and truthful data and people will change their minds. Compulsively lie, make up data, and rave about conspiracies and you will be dismissed.
You are angry because people are being reasonible with you when you aren't. That's silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Amusing. A bit pathetic though, but amusing.
Yeah, acting like a bond villian when you believe crazy crap is like laughing at everyone else after you get pantsed. We all understand the Dunning-Kruger effect when we see it from climate deniers, and it's just sad.
People who are likely to head these global warming denial campaigns are privileged. They only probably have 30 more years to live anyway. They could care less about what happens to the younger generation when there's nothing for them to care about.
But, so long as people are wrapped up in the next i-phone or next app to download, they could care less.. sheer ignorance. lol
Ahhh... to be so lucky, as to be one of the gifted and enlightened seers and prognosticators.
People who head the global warming cabal are in the same boat who are trying to cash in on the ignorance of the youth they are trying to scare so they can live the high life on the wallet of the younger generation.
Yup, if the scammers can just convince enough gullible people to enrich and empower them, then they can live out the remainder of their lives as the elite, wealthy and powerful. And why not, it's working like a charm for people like al Gore.
They "yutes" of this country should be burning down congress right now for the debt that is being hoisted upon them later in life. They are too busy being indoctrinated by the madness though. Hell our school just this year started teaching a money management class, not required. You can pick that or gym or guitar or what have you. LOL.
I'm surprised this thread is still going on. The study was a joke in the first page.
Well, those are the three points said in the exact same way so lets group them for expediancy.
There have been many challenges to global warming, and not a single one has stood up to any peer review at all. Very few even have any data at all, such as zero data in the article provided by the OP. Challenging evidence with raving doesn't work in reality.
What challenge to which theoretical assumption would that be? What data shows man-induced CO2 is warming the planet? You know, just because CO2 has been labeled a minor greenhouse gas, does not mean it's your "I win!" button for every minor fluctuation in every temperature taken anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
What has been provided would fail a high school mathamatics course. Ross McKitrick thinks average temperatures cannot be calculated, and doesn't know the difference between radians and degrees in temp in his criticism. Steve McIntyre's entire position is deleting data from papers (like NASA's Jim Hansen) and claiming they made things up, as part of a global socialist conspiracy where NASA takes over the world. Edward Wegman lied and falsified so much he got fired even from an institution that denied climate change.
...and this proves what about science. We have seen that some people misrepresent science, fudge the numbers, omit contrary data. What is their motivation, fame, professional jealousy, professional infighting among peers, financial gain, to gain prestige and notoriety, or defending their own honor and integrity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
If people have scientific data they can provide it and the scientific community will change their minds. Only if it's true, verifiable, and correct. You can't lie, provide no evidence, and can't provide true data to people and expect them to take your claims to be true.
So where is the proof that man-induced CO2 is casing the ocean currents and jet stream to artificially warm the arctic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
Well, I haven't found any political figure who publically denies climate change, or any funded study, that isn't shown to have significant backing by a company in the fossil fuels. It's a fact of life. I don't think it is immediate grounds for dismissal. I think that the data speaks for itself no matter who publishes it.
The climate changes all the time, even one summer to the next is not exactly the same. So for someone to say the climate never changes, and it's supposed to remain at some arbitrary value, for all time, is ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
If your only reason is because you say so then you are out of luck. The track record of climate science done by fossil fuel companies so far amounts to zero. Provide real, accurate, truthful data and you will be listened to. That's all.
So, coming up with a theory that you cannot prove, means you theory is correct if someone else cannot prove otherwise? That's like a Christian is proven correct, in claiming god created space and time, because you cannot prove he didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
