They confirmed that it was...Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:So your argument is that I'm just gullible? That's not very persuasive.Jock 07 said:
Follow the money. The problem is that the majority of the populace is as gullible as you are. Pandering to that is not the correct solution.
That wasn't his argument. You should read it again.
"There Is No Climate Crisis"
88,271 Views |
928 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by oh no
I have a lack of critical thinking skills because I'm skeptical of 1,609 scientists?
Pro-tip: the end goal of climate hysteria is to advocate for de population of humans.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
Explain to me how I can control what China does. I only get to vote in the United States.BadMoonRisin said:
Also, those 53% are barking up the wrong tree.
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
FTA 2001 said:They confirmed that it was...Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:So your argument is that I'm just gullible? That's not very persuasive.Jock 07 said:
Follow the money. The problem is that the majority of the populace is as gullible as you are. Pandering to that is not the correct solution.
That wasn't his argument. You should read it again.
His argument was that you can see why if you follow the money. He said the issue with that is that you won't because you are gullible.
That part is just self evident.
No, this is a stupid conspiracy theory. No serious person is advocating for getting rid of humans.fixer said:
Pro-tip: the end goal of climate hysteria is to advocate for de population of humans.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
So
Isn't there a lot of money in fossil fuels?Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:They confirmed that it was...Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:So your argument is that I'm just gullible? That's not very persuasive.Jock 07 said:
Follow the money. The problem is that the majority of the populace is as gullible as you are. Pandering to that is not the correct solution.
That wasn't his argument. You should read it again.
His argument was that you can see why if you follow the money. He said the issue with that is that you won't because you are gullible.
That part is just self evident.
FTA 2001 said:No, this is a stupid conspiracy theory. No serious person is advocating for getting rid of humans.fixer said:
Pro-tip: the end goal of climate hysteria is to advocate for de population of humans.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-decline-will-change-the-world-for-the-better/?amp=true
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/06/102472/critics-blast-a-proposal-to-curb-climate-change-by-halting-population-growth/amp/
Which science is correct?
My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
FTA 2001 said:
Explain to me how I can control what China does. I only get to vote in the United States.
When did any liberal let voting stop them from telling everyone how to think and act?
I'm told Climate change is a global phenomenon.
Who and how you vote determines policy. Part of that policy involves influence in China.
That no one is hammering India and China tells you all you need to know.
Well we live on the same planet. If we are really on a doomsday path to the world being uninhabitable in 12-50 years, it doesnt really matter what we do, if other countries who emit way more CO2 (and increasing at an exponential rate, by the way) than we do matters anyway and have no mitigation matters, correct?
The only way I would support any money going to CO2 mitigation is if the money went to planting trees or seeding the oceans with algae since, you know that's a proven factor in scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and producing oxygen.
The electric cars and renewable energy is a expensive pipedream.
The only way I would support any money going to CO2 mitigation is if the money went to planting trees or seeding the oceans with algae since, you know that's a proven factor in scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and producing oxygen.
The electric cars and renewable energy is a expensive pipedream.
FTA 2001 said:No, this is a stupid conspiracy theory. No serious person is advocating for getting rid of humans.fixer said:
Pro-tip: the end goal of climate hysteria is to advocate for de population of humans.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
So a logical consequence is a conspiracy theory?
FTA 2001 said:
Can anyone provide a strong enough argument that would convince me that these 1,600 scientists know better than the groups and organizations below, who represent many many more than 1,600 scientists?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Quote:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/Quote:
American Chemical Society
"The Earth's climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.htmlQuote:
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)
https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_ClimateQuote:
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)
https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/climate%20change?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-309.xmlQuote:
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/Quote:
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)
https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/climate.cfmQuote:
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)
https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspxQuote:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."
https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/internationalsite/documents/webpage/international_080877.pdfQuote:
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere.
"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
If you subscribe to young earth being 6,000 years old, assuming reliable human records of temps is 250 years, that's only 4% of the earth's history. Further, significantly less than 1% if the earth is billions of years old. No serious business is making business altering decisions based on 4%, at most, of data.
Ice cores, which seem to be the basis for long term comparisons, can't even reliably tell rate of temp change in small increments. Now way scientists today can reliably compare the rate of the change today for the last 50, 100, 150, or 200 years to ice core data to confidently say it's the fastest rate of change in history.
The people screaming the loudest about climate emergency and demanding action now, still take private jets to Davos (and everywhere else), have houses by the ocean, and aren't urgently reducing their carbon footprint.
The scientists can't even tell us what the optimal temperature of the earth should be.
Anyone claiming science is settled is not a scientist. Science is never settled because that's not it's purpose.
The claims made, now are the same claims made the last 70 years - it's really hard to be a sky is falling person and be taken seriously after you've been wrong so many times.
FTA 2001 said:Isn't there a lot of money in fossil fuels?Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:They confirmed that it was...Definitely Not A Cop said:FTA 2001 said:So your argument is that I'm just gullible? That's not very persuasive.Jock 07 said:
Follow the money. The problem is that the majority of the populace is as gullible as you are. Pandering to that is not the correct solution.
That wasn't his argument. You should read it again.
His argument was that you can see why if you follow the money. He said the issue with that is that you won't because you are gullible.
That part is just self evident.
You are just going to continue making dishonest arguments and logical fallacies every time someone points something out to you. I think we are done here. You obviously don't trust the science.
it's not even 1609 scientists. the signatories and their qualifications are listed in the document. just skimming the first page I see a two retired teachers, a retired lawyer, an IT consultant, a financial advisor. not exactly a convincing bunch.FTA 2001 said:
I have a lack of critical thinking skills because I'm skeptical of 1,609 scientists?
I think you are imagine yourself so level headed you missed the point (and your shift key).Old McDonald said:
any time one of these declarations comes out, it takes maybe five minutes of looking into the signatories' backgrounds to discover they're anything but independent or apolitical. of the two nobel laureates signed on to this one (both of whom are not in climate related fields), one is a board member of a climate change denialist think tank headed by a former ceo of the american petroleum institute, and the other is an advisor to another free market absolutist libertarian think tank best known for, among other things, fighting for deregulation of tobacco companies.
i won't pretend like the "climate change is real and exacerbated by man" side of the debate is free of political ideology, and i'm not a climate doomer by any means. but to the extent anyone who doesn't believe in man made climate change is convinced scientists on "the other side" are pushing an agenda, consider that those who agree with you often are as well.
This list is a response to the stupid lists put together by political leftists who believe they hold the keys to science and that everyone must agree with them or they are "climate deniers" and anti-science. They are the ones who put lists together and claim "ok it's settled".
I did laugh when you said "two Nobel laureates" opinions are biased because they are in a "climate change denialist think tank". You know...call them what you will, but they did win a Nobel prize...
And you're wrong - in this case 99% of the political ideology $#!% is on the left.
For starters, why do you see so many (of those that push this climate change narrative) going all over the globe in private planes, yachts and large vehicles? Why are they building their homes on ocean front property?FTA 2001 said:Elaborate on what you mean by this.oh no said:
Someone who is that concerned about it and all-in on the one and only alarm science might want to consider doing their part by reducing their carbon footprint and becoming carbon themselves sooner rather than later.
fixer said:
Pro-tip: the end goal of climate hysteria is to advocate for de population of humans.
Humans cause the climate change through their activities. Getting rid of humans gets rid of the root cause.
Remember that when the shrieking for total institutional control over all human life begins.
That's simplistic.
A whole lot of it, most of it, arguably, is just about $. There are huge sums of $ being made by green initiatives, just a massive transfer of wealth to people willing to take advantage. And it allows these opportunists to dress up their naked greed in socially-elevated green packaging.
Another major impetus is about control. Cheap energy leads to widespread economic prosperity and freedom. Those who want more govt control want to restrict and reduce cheap energy so as to create more govt dependence.
Finally, a lot of the diehards who aren't enriching themselves are just trying to fill the God-sized hole in their hearts and make themselves feel better by "saving the planet."
How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?FTA 2001 said:My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.
It was settled at one point the Earth was the center of the solar system. Glad actual scientists continued to understand science is never settled.FTA 2001 said:My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
Also - are the actions of those screaming climate emergency matching up with their words? If not, why not?
there in lies the "genius" in relabeling it climate change - global cooling and global warming theory failed so renaming it "climate change" insured it would maintain "truth". The climate changes daily with the rising and setting of the sun.4stringAg said:LOL. One year's worth of data doesn't make it a crisis. and certainly doesn't point to any manmade causes. When we have a cooler summer in a year or two, does that mean we've solved the climate problem?wxmanX said:
yea, whatever.
World is 1.6C above the mean, NATL highest temps ever, Gulf highest temps ever. Record warm TX, highest lows ever in Baton Rouge, Tampa, Miami, PHX this year.
Morrocco 122F, highest ever.
Greece, 119F highest ever.
Spain 118F tied highest ever.
Man how many times and how many subjects can you be wrong on? You've got to stop listening to dem talking points.
Old McDonald said:
any time one of these declarations comes out, it takes maybe five minutes of looking into the signatories' backgrounds to discover they're anything but independent or apolitical. of the two nobel laureates signed on to this one (both of whom are not in climate related fields), one is a board member of a climate change denialist think tank headed by a former ceo of the american petroleum institute, and the other is an advisor to another free market absolutist libertarian think tank best known for, among other things, fighting for deregulation of tobacco companies.
i won't pretend like the "climate change is real and exacerbated by man" side of the debate is free of political ideology, and i'm not a climate doomer by any means. but to the extent anyone who doesn't believe in man made climate change is convinced scientists on "the other side" are pushing an agenda, consider that those who agree with you often are as well.
Ad hominem?
Are their assertions demonstrably incorrect?
This. The climate change acolytes vociferously claim the science is settled and there is 'consensus'. The takeaway of the OP is that there is not consensus. Therefore, anyone claiming that the science is 'settled' is either wrong or lying.Quote:
Anyone claiming science is settled is not a scientist. Science is never settled because that's not it's purpose.
If they are wrong or lying, why? Also, what else are they wrong or lying about? Keep following those lines of questions and the whole climate change con falls apart. But the advocates know that the vast majority of people will not investigate or ask these questions, they depend on the shallowness of the people to maintain their scam.
Considering that's LotY/Manhattan, what else would you expect?
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
You are right, science never stops sciencing.Beat40 said:It was settled at one point the Earth was the center of the solar system. Glad actual scientists continued to understand science is never settled.FTA 2001 said:My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
Also - are the actions of those screaming climate emergency matching up with their words? If not, why not?
If you are asking why those screaming climate emergency are still using fossil fuels, it's because our economy and society are largely built around those fossil fuels. It's impossible not to continue using them. I believe the goal is net zero carbon emissions, not necessarily zero carbon emissions.
When you realize that climate change is a scam, someone who understands law and financing included on that list suddenly makes a lot more sense.Old McDonald said:it's not even 1609 scientists. the signatories and their qualifications are listed in the document. just skimming the first page I see a two retired teachers, a retired lawyer, an IT consultant, a financial advisor. not exactly a convincing bunch.FTA 2001 said:
I have a lack of critical thinking skills because I'm skeptical of 1,609 scientists?
I think you've got to stop listening to Republican talking points.Rockdoc said:
Man how many times and how many subjects can you be wrong on? You've got to stop listening to dem talking points.
wxmanX said:
i'm not even a liberal.
Voted republican since I was born.
Just know the science is correct. Later.
Hello there fellow republicans
FTA 2001 said:I think you've got to stop listening to Republican talking points.Rockdoc said:
Man how many times and how many subjects can you be wrong on? You've got to stop listening to dem talking points.
I don't listen to ANY talking points. I use my brain and my education. Try it.
Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?BadMoonRisin said:How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?FTA 2001 said:My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.
I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.
FTA 2001 said:My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.fixer said:
1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.
Because these scientists are actually following the Scientific Method (based on their statements posted here) whereas the "97%" of scientists who have declared human caused climate change as settled are not. The fact that your side has concluded this is settled ignores the fundamental rule of Science. Considering your side also ignores the fundamental rule of Economics, this is not a surprising take.
Logic and common sense say that any climate change we are seeing has natural causes at play simply because our planet has undergone massive and catastrophic environmental and climate changes throughout it's history. Those changes don't stop; they subside or go dormant but they don't stop. And they are changes that humans had nothing do with and would not be able to alter even if they wanted to.
Taking a position that everything happening now is caused by humans is typical humanistic hubris of the highest order. We are fleas on a dog. Along for the ride.
Do we impact our direct environment with our actions? Of course. Does the big ball of fire in the sky along with numerous other natural processes impact the environment? Of course.
Why not both?
Answer: You can't tax natural processes and now that the big names behind human caused climate change are now openly admitting that this movement is to usher in Marxism and to take from the haves and give to the have nots, we now know this entire movement is a scheme.
It's about money. As everything always is about money.
Edit: wrong emoji
Featured Stories
See All
19:50
1d ago
5.4k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
A&M's approach remains the same with NMSU coming to Aggieland
by Olin Buchanan
27:22
16h ago
4.4k
8:23
2h ago
651
TexAgs' The Night Before: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Luke Evangelist
116:42
6h ago
1.0k