Welcome to the Age of Denial

Mott the Hoople said:
Read this in the NYT today at lunch.

He's right those of us who are actually educated in science can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines, roll our eyes and ignore the proles.
Click to expand...

So what's the plan, Mott?

Tom posted that even if America stops all emissions cold tomorrow, China's output & that of the rest of the world will offset that reduction within 4 years. Tekky posted that it doesn't matter what we do, and if we go off carbon - global warming will still continue fairly unabated for MANY centuries.

So...how do you propose we "stop it"?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... fyi Darla... my industry WANTS the fear mongers story to push for cap and trade. They know they can make money off of it.

My salary personally is not going to be affected one way or the other. This is simply more nonsense from you... which is typical of you fear mongers.

My guess is you are not going to try to explain why it is the computer models have been wrong? Nah... you will just continue with nonsense like your above post.
Click to expand...

She meant your the salary you earn shilling for the Kock Bros.
 
I Love America said:
Lets clear a few things up

1) no sane person argues that the climate changes. We all acknowledge that. The subject of debate is whether man is the cause. That had not been proven and cannot be proven scientifically. It is a theory based off models, based on human assumptions.

2) nobody argues that evolution exists. The debate as I see it is whether evolution by itself can account for the origin of man. Science has not proven this. It is a theory.

3) why should we blindly put our faith in scientists? What makes them above reproach? You sound like scientists have never been wrong.

You are as guilty of the behavior you accuse your political opponents. You are narrow minded and selectively choose data points that support your biases while ignoring inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...
Well...to put is simply. You don't know what you're talking about cause.

#1. It has been shown scientifically that human industrial activity has impacted climate.
#2. Evolution is a theory and it has demonstrated conclusively the factual basis of human common descent.
#3. That's a strawman. Scientist only expect you to respect facts and empirical evidence.
 
Superfreak said:
1) It is not a knee jerk reaction... you are truly in denial if you think the AGW crowd hasn't been fear mongering on the issue.
2) The data does not support your so-called 'consensus'. The very fact that you continue to pretend there is a consensus shows you don't pay attention to the actual data. You continue to live in your fantasy world were the computer models have all been correct.
Click to expand...

As always, you made a claim you can't support and instead of acknowledging that you act just like every spineless conservative and move the goalposts.

Where did I deny that the "AGW crowd" (by which you probably mean politicians and activists rather than scientists) have been fear mongering? YOU said....

Because you know the actual data doesn't support your fear mongering claims.

You are the one trying to lump me in with the vague "AGW crowd" and claim I support what?

LOL.... so called consensus. You are just silly. The computer models have been accurate.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well...to put is simply. You don't know what you're talking about cause.

#1. It has been shown scientifically that human industrial activity has impacted climate.
#2. Evolution is a theory and it has demonstrated conclusively the factual basis of human common descent.
#3. That's a strawman. Scientist only expect you to respect facts and empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

1) You are moving the goal posts... no one suggested that human industrial activity has no impact on the climate.
2) true
3) Except the fear mongers on global warming do not. They expect us to chant consensus with them even though the data is showing their computer models are wrong.

Enough of your bullshit pretending the argument is not specifically related to CO2 rising. Every time something shows that you are wrong, you shift the goal posts.
 
Professor Baxter said:
As always, you made a claim you can't support and instead of acknowledging that you act just like every spineless conservative and move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

what claim is that String?

Where did I deny that the "AGW crowd" (by which you probably mean politicians and activists rather than scientists) have been fear mongering? YOU said....

Because you know the actual data doesn't support your fear mongering claims.
Click to expand...



When you run around calling people denialists, you are fear mongering. You are attempting to shut down discussion by demeaning them. You did so in the OP of this thread.

You are the one trying to lump me in with the vague "AGW crowd" and claim I support what?
Click to expand...

You claim there is a consensus... just as they do. There is not.

LOL.... so called consensus. You are just silly. The computer models have been accurate.
Click to expand...

No they have not been accurate. But thanks for again shouting consensus for us.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Click to expand...

LMAO... that has already been debunked....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/
 
Thing1 said:
So what's the plan, Mott?

Tom posted that even if America stops all emissions cold tomorrow, China's output & that of the rest of the world will offset that reduction within 4 years. Tekky posted that it doesn't matter what we do, and if we go off carbon - global warming will still continue fairly unabated for MANY centuries.

So...how do you propose we "stop it"?
Click to expand...
Don't know....I'm a solid waste guy....you need to talk to a climate scientist.
 
Superfreak said:
1) You are moving the goal posts... no one suggested that human industrial activity has no impact on the climate.
2) true
3) Except the fear mongers on global warming do not. They expect us to chant consensus with them even though the data is showing their computer models are wrong.

Enough of your bullshit pretending the argument is not specifically related to CO2 rising. Every time something shows that you are wrong, you shift the goal posts.
Click to expand...
The only one moving goal posts are you.
 
Superfreak said:
1) You are moving the goal posts... no one suggested that human industrial activity has no impact on the climate.
2) true
3) Except the fear mongers on global warming do not. They expect us to chant consensus with them even though the data is showing their computer models are wrong.

Enough of your bullshit pretending the argument is not specifically related to CO2 rising. Every time something shows that you are wrong, you shift the goal posts.
Click to expand...

It was at least suggested. But tell us, what impact does it have and what are the primary factors? Do you have published paper(s) supporting your hypothesis and accurate climate models?
 
Superfreak said:
Dear moron... anyone that has 'studied' this for two decades should already know that.

1998 was the warmest year on record. Statistically tied with 2005 and 2010.
Click to expand...

So your say so is your proof? That is what I thought.
By the way, I have studied alternative energy for 20 years, not climate change.
 
Ok, let's move on to easier ones:

Evolution and vaccine, which are also referenced in the op.

Some of our politicians deny evolution, pandering to their base. And certainly the vaccine deniers (don't know if any politicians are in that crowd - Bill Maher is, which is why we stopped watching him regularly) have killed kids because of their denial.

What happened? our country used to embrace science. Why are we denying it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top