Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-17-2014, 12:43 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,429,306 times
Reputation: 4241

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
Wrong. And on a couple of points.
  1. I teach evolution. I probably have forgotten more about the topic than you've ever learned. Debate with me on evolution at your own peril. But I have given up commenting in those such threads due to the fact that I have been debating those who use religion as their reasoning behind their denial of it. And as we all know, debates that use science on one hand and religion on the other is frustratingly pointless: You can't convince those that won't see (or understand) the science because it goes against what they want to believe. It makes them uncomfortable. So I have stopped wasting my time w/ those threads.
  2. I don't "deny" the science of AGW. I - who teach science for a living, and having done it for 2 decades, successfully - know about the science and know that there is much we still do not know. And for people who claim to be scientifically literate to say "the science is settled" is unacceptable in the extreme.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to expound on this about the actual science. Why? because - like the evolution debate - these debates involve those who know science (and those who think they do) and those who treat both AGW and NAGW as a religion. There is no convincing one or the other that they could be wrong.

Now... saying that, I dare you to call me a denier. You - and others in here - keep using that word like a talisman; a shield against debate. It makes you feel better about yourselves by repeating it because it sounds negative.

But you - and others - have been told time and again that no one is denying climate change, since its been changing since time out of mind. But I know enough about the actual science to be skeptical about the final conclusions concerning a science 1) that actually hasn't been around for very long, 2)with specific data that that only goes back so many years, 3) broadly general data that goes back furthur 4) during times that we fail to know all of the factors effecting said data. And any student of science knows that there have many times in the past that politics (and religion) has - to science's detriment - directly or indirectly influenced scientific progess.

Most true scientists will be sceptical of any scientific inquiry that has been politicized as much as this topic. Why? Because - believe it or not - it's no longer about the science anymore.

BTW - I don't vote republican or democrat. I vote for the person. I'm former Army, with my permit to carry, but disagree with the NRA. I'm pro-life but side with the option to choose. I'm spiritual (believe in God) but dislike organized religion.

Now how in the Hell are you going to catagorize me? RWNJ? *******? Which, huh? Using these damn labels is also part of the debate problem. Many of you simply can't believe or fathom the idea that not all who disagree with you are members of the opposite party. You judge and condemn based on juvenile beliefs. You show your own stupidity with these comments.

And truly what the Hell does a person's political party have to do with their stance on science?!?!? That truly is appalling.
wow...A great post here! +1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2014, 03:57 PM
 
Location: in area code 919 & from 716
927 posts, read 1,455,562 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Are they STUPID?

They are American (republicans) who are victims of corporate propaganda.

97% of all climate scientists and every government on Earth believes man made global warming is happening, and that it is a major threat to this planet.

But corporations like ExxonMobile and GE are against combating global warming because it will decrease their profits. So ExxonMoble pays scientists and other groups to cast doubt about global warming. Then the corporate backed Fox news/Rush radio tells their listeners "global warming is a hoax."

Only a US republican is stupid enough to believe global warming is not happening (conservatives in all other countries believe global warming is happening.)


Climate Change: Consensus

Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Blog | Media Matters for America
typical lib attitude
EXPLAIN THIS:
the GLOBAL WARMING that melted various ICE AGES

You talk about man made global warming - what?
Do you include flagellant methane from excessive bean consumption?
Ever been around a dairy farm?

or are you a tree hugger who insisted on stopping the use of biodegradable paper shopping bags
... to replace it WITH PLASTIC which just so happens to be made by petroleum bi-products

FACT IS - TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT ARE SPLITTING HAIRS
and use the resources they resent and blame

IE:
Quote:
But corporations like ExxonMobile and GE are against combating global warming because it will decrease their profits.
Let me guess - you ride a horse or bicycle EVERYWHERE?

Stop puffing up when you actually use the stuff you complain about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 04:37 PM
 
21,426 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14080
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
of course, you do mean the oil and gas money, right? they cannot let the side affects get in the way of feeding our addiction to their product.
Says the guy typing on a keyboard made from petroleum products.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,732,686 times
Reputation: 5689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I find that really hard to believe. I think they're dishonest. If it was just stupidity, showing their claims are wrong would be enough. But they keep coming back with the same lies over and over again.
The best I can say is they are invested in their viewpoint, and hate to admit they are wrong, so the will fight to the death to defend a losing position. Worst case, they are just intellectually dishonest. A good number of the conservative posters who post so frequently on this topic are employed in the energy industry (oil drilling, coal,etc.), so this is their bread and butter. Folks will always find or support arguments that support their livelihood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,057,177 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital_Duck View Post
typical lib attitude
EXPLAIN THIS:
the GLOBAL WARMING that melted various ICE AGES

You talk about man made global warming - what?
Do you include flagellant methane from excessive bean consumption?
Ever been around a dairy farm?

or are you a tree hugger who insisted on stopping the use of biodegradable paper shopping bags
... to replace it WITH PLASTIC which just so happens to be made by petroleum bi-products

FACT IS - TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT ARE SPLITTING HAIRS
and use the resources they resent and blame

IE:

Let me guess - you ride a horse or bicycle EVERYWHERE?

Stop puffing up when you actually use the stuff you complain about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:14 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,354,108 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I find that really hard to believe. I think they're dishonest. If it was just stupidity, showing their claims are wrong would be enough. But they keep coming back with the same lies over and over again.
Maybe it's a combination of dishonesty and stupidity and ignorance and arrogance.

Edited to add: I am referring to deniers, not skeptics who can actually discuss the science in a rational way and are open to learning more about the science and the evidence and don't just dismiss anything that doesn't sit with their political or religious beliefs out of hand.

A denier is someone who makes blanket statements like "AGW is a hoax", "there is zero evidence for AGW" and uses catch phrases like "Hide the Decline", mentions Al Gore every other sentence, says climate scientists are scamming lot's of money, calls people *******s, claims scientists predicted an ice-age in the 70's, and shows they don't understand the science by repeating nonsense like the Arctic Ice coverage is recovering, calling CO2 'plant food' etc and doesn't think that a global average temperature rise of 2 to 4 degrees by the end of the century is anything to worry about anyway because their hunting season might be extended.

Last edited by Ceist; 01-17-2014 at 11:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Swansea, Massachusetts
167 posts, read 329,300 times
Reputation: 128
Just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn't make them stupid...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:19 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 2,159,055 times
Reputation: 1886
One thing I'd like to ask is, I get the impression that people who deny Human-Caused Global Warming believe we shouldn't bother with any of the supposed remedies either (IE public transport, renewable energy, environmentally friendly buildings, reduced emissions, alternative fuels, sustainable growth etc). Which is strange, because these remedies help reduce carbon emissions, costs, and improve livability by reducing air pollution. They are wholly beneficial to everyone; their effect on Global Warming is only just an added plus. And yet they believe we shouldn't bother with these. My question is-why? It seems to me that things that are universally beneficial would have universal support, but I guess not. Would any AGW proponents and opponents like to weigh on this? Also, are there any AGW opponents out there that don't feel this way, and if so, would you kindly explain? Thank you in advance for input.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:35 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,354,108 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
Wrong. And on a couple of points.
  1. I teach evolution. I probably have forgotten more about the topic than you've ever learned. Debate with me on evolution at your own peril. But I have given up commenting in those such threads due to the fact that I have been debating those who use religion as their reasoning behind their denial of it. And as we all know, debates that use science on one hand and religion on the other is frustratingly pointless: You can't convince those that won't see (or understand) the science because it goes against what they want to believe. It makes them uncomfortable. So I have stopped wasting my time w/ those threads.
  2. I don't "deny" the science of AGW. I - who teach science for a living, and having done it for 2 decades, successfully - know about the science and know that there is much we still do not know. And for people who claim to be scientifically literate to say "the science is settled" is unacceptable in the extreme.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to expound on this about the actual science. Why? because - like the evolution debate - these debates involve those who know science (and those who think they do) and those who treat both AGW and NAGW as a religion. There is no convincing one or the other that they could be wrong.

Now... saying that, I dare you to call me a denier. You - and others in here - keep using that word like a talisman; a shield against debate. It makes you feel better about yourselves by repeating it because it sounds negative.

But you - and others - have been told time and again that no one is denying climate change, since its been changing since time out of mind. But I know enough about the actual science to be skeptical about the final conclusions concerning a science 1) that actually hasn't been around for very long, 2)with specific data that that only goes back so many years, 3) broadly general data that goes back furthur 4) during times that we fail to know all of the factors effecting said data. And any student of science knows that there have many times in the past that politics (and religion) has - to science's detriment - directly or indirectly influenced scientific progess.

Most true scientists will be sceptical of any scientific inquiry that has been politicized as much as this topic. Why? Because - believe it or not - it's no longer about the science anymore.

BTW - I don't vote republican or democrat. I vote for the person. I'm former Army, with my permit to carry, but disagree with the NRA. I'm pro-life but side with the option to choose. I'm spiritual (believe in God) but dislike organized religion.

Now how in the Hell are you going to catagorize me? RWNJ? *******? Which, huh? Using these damn labels is also part of the debate problem. Many of you simply can't believe or fathom the idea that not all who disagree with you are members of the opposite party. You judge and condemn based on juvenile beliefs. You show your own stupidity with these comments.

And truly what the Hell does a person's political party have to do with their stance on science?!?!? That truly is appalling.
Did you miss the part where I said "crossover"? Did you see me write ALL? Are you unaware of the difference between someone who is skeptical and someone who is a denier?

I have never read any of your posts or responded to your posts before as far as I know, yet you accuse me of all sorts of things.

How would I categorize you? Just from this post alone, I would say paranoid, arrogant, angry and perfectly willing to attack your own straw man arguments.

Were you aware that the "the science is settled" statement is a straw man argument created by AGW deniers? No true scientist says the science is truly settled on anything. But it can certainly get to a point where it becomes silly to keep denying all evidence out of hand because of religious or political or economic reasons - especially those who show they've never even read a Journal article in their life and get all their information from conspiracy denier blogs like WattsUpWithThat and tabloid infotainment sources like the UK Daily Mail and Fox 'News'.

My comment was based on the anecdotal observation that quite a few of the regular AGW deniers (yes deniers, not skeptics) on these forums show they are science deniers when it comes to evolution or AGW- and they make it really obvious they don't understand any of the science behind either topic.

It would be interesting to do a poll.

Last edited by Ceist; 01-17-2014 at 10:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,169,069 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebaldknobber View Post
Global warming is a bigger threat to our world than war, the economy, AIDS, poverty, same sex marriage.

HOW CAN ANYONE, WITH ALL THE OBVIOUS SIGNS, DENY GLOBAL WARMING!!!!? AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!


The hottest issue: Climate change dwarfs other problems - baltimoresun.com


THE END OF THE WORLD by Brenda Lee - YouTube


there is no such thing as man made global warming. any global warming that is going on, is natural and not caused by man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top