Jump to content



Photo

Global Warm, er, Climate Chan, er, SCIENCE = WRONG!


  • Please log in to reply
305 replies to this topic

#41 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 09:46 AM

You're a dumb ###### if you think you know better than 97% of the experts.  That's all I came in to say and since that point is not open for argument at all.  Going to leave this echo chamber of idiocy now.



#42 mmmmm...beer

mmmmm...beer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 9,834 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 09:52 AM

You're a dumb ###### if you think you know better than 97% of the experts.  That's all I came in to say and since that point is not open for argument at all.  Going to leave this echo chamber of idiocy now.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those experts are bought and paid for by an administration that granted funds to proposals whose purpose was to show global warming?

All the grants go to the folks with what your throwing money at. It's more " big science" than anything else at this point.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf

#43 Bert

Bert

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,024 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 09:55 AM

Global warning is undeniable. Unless you're a retard.
Man's affect on that is up for debate.
Hth

This.  And man's ability to do anything about it is also an inconvenient truth environmentalists don't want to discuss.


You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?

#44 TimmySmith

TimmySmith

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 16,121 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:01 AM

You're a dumb ###### if you think you know better than 97% of the experts.  That's all I came in to say and since that point is not open for argument at all.  Going to leave this echo chamber of idiocy now.

97% of experts has become a rather cliched line.   :dunno:

 

 

https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8


“We’ve fulfilled far more promises than we’ve promised,” the president said. “I call it promises plus.”

 


#45 Filthy Fernadez

Filthy Fernadez

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 22,614 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:23 AM

Whatever will these scientists do if we don't give them the 4 trillion they're demanding?!!!!


BBC for the most part is pretty damn good.


#46 12th Man

12th Man

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,977 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:25 AM

You're a dumb ###### if you think you know better than 97% of the experts.  That's all I came in to say and since that point is not open for argument at all.  Going to leave this echo chamber of idiocy now.

97% of experts are funded by the govt and trying to keep the funding coming in. Wise up pally.

#47 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:38 AM

97% of experts are funded by the govt and trying to keep the funding coming in. Wise up pally.

 

Most experts are professors being paid by colleges to teach and perform research.

 

But you believing that 97% of the experts are paid by the government totally explains why you trust the 3% employed by places like Exxon.



#48 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:40 AM

Just out of curiosity, how many of those experts are bought and paid for by an administration that granted funds to proposals whose purpose was to show global warming?

All the grants go to the folks with what your throwing money at. It's more " big science" than anything else at this point.

 

So your theory is the same as 12th Mans?  That there is a global conspiracy among researchers to come to a fraudulent conclusion?

 

 

Edited to add:

The experts came to the same conclusion under more than just the last administration.  Trying to blame this on Obama is dumb as ######.



#49 12th Man

12th Man

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,977 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:45 AM

 
So your theory is the same as 12th Mans?  That there is a global conspiracy among researchers to come to a fraudulent conclusion?
 
 
Edited to add:
The experts came to the same conclusion under more than just the last administration.  Trying to blame this on Obama is dumb as ######.

It's not our "theory". Educate yourself. Stop dining on the lies of the wacky left.

#50 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:48 AM

It's not our "theory". Educate yourself. Stop dining on the lies of the wacky left.

 

LOL at the "educate yourself" argument.  You do realize that you're ignoring the people that literally educated themselves on this exact issue?  You're so "woke".



#51 Thornton Melon

Thornton Melon

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,807 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 10:58 AM

 
LOL at the "educate yourself" argument.  You do realize that you're ignoring the people that literally educated themselves on this exact issue?  You're so "woke".


Did you have trouble finding your way out of the "echo chamber"?
Take it easy, take it easy...and don't get any on the walls!

#52 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 12:12 PM

Kanil, look I think you are just uneducated on the 97% thing, its the same type of statistic as the 1 in 5 rape thing, it was taken in a very small survey, and the context was very broad, it was also taken at a "GREEN CONVENTION"

 

97% of scientists do not agree, I can pull a dozen, world renowned climate and geological scientists who disagree with the talking point right now

 

do yourself a favor and please watch the first video by Joe Rogan with Randall Carlson, if you watch that and can't even have an open discussion then there is no hope.  I have done my diligence of watching the Inconvenient Truth, and am capable of having a discussion

 

since you brought up Exxon, there is a nice bit in said interview about Exxon, and Gulf spill, that shows where man attempted to fix it by cleaning it up, as opposed to areas where nature took its course, the affects currently are astounding, where man had no part in cleanup the ecology has corrected and fixed itself, however where man worked (and dont get me wrong we were doing the right thing trying) has been slower to recover

 

you just dont do yourself a favor by throwing out things like 97% and conspiracy you need to look deeper if you want to get into the discussion, and form some opinions for yourself.  I used to be on the global warming side, around 2004/5 and when it shifted to "climate change" is when I started listening and understanding the other sides argument.  Once I opened up and listened it was a very easy shift to move to the right side on this topic.  


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#53 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 12:15 PM

 

Most experts are professors being paid by colleges to teach and perform research.

 

But you believing that 97% of the experts are paid by the government totally explains why you trust the 3% employed by places like Exxon.

 

since you bring up professors

 

just food for thought, most professors are liberals, and think socialism is good


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#54 SUXBNME

SUXBNME

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 49,856 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 01:26 PM

Global warning is undeniable.

:lol:

 

Then why did they shift the name to "Climate Change" ?



#55 12th Man

12th Man

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,977 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 01:55 PM

 
LOL at the "educate yourself" argument.  You do realize that you're ignoring the people that literally educated themselves on this exact issue?  You're so "woke".

I'm ignoring people trying to keep their funding. Follow the money. Educate yourself. There is no global warming. There is no climate change. It's a hoax.

#56 12th Man

12th Man

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,977 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 01:55 PM

:lol:
 
Then why did they shift the name to "Climate Change" ?

This ^

#57 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:23 PM

Did you have trouble finding your way out of the "echo chamber"?

Yes, yes I did.  And I feel dumber for it.

 

I'm never going to change anyone in this conversations mind.  They've politicized the issue and their politics tell them it's BS so they agree.  Whenever any argument showing otherwise gets pointed out it's either flatly ignored or they fall back on the conspiracy theory of these professors who must be getting super rich off of these studies.  It's pointless and always ends with me being super frustrated at people.



#58 giraldi02

giraldi02

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 6,099 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:26 PM

I'm ignoring people trying to keep their funding. Follow the money. Educate yourself. There is no global warming. There is no climate change. It's a hoax.

 

Perhaps you should follow the money for those firmly denying climate change as well. 


WPIAFP

 


#59 Kanil

Kanil

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:34 PM

 

Perhaps you should follow the money for those firmly denying climate change as well. 

 

Don't focking go there.  Just educate yourself.  Go to google and type "climate change hoax" and read up.  Tons of reputable sources out there!



#60 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:51 PM

 

Don't focking go there.  Just educate yourself.  Go to google and type "climate change hoax" and read up.  Tons of reputable sources out there!

 

please respond to me I think I presented you a thought out response

 

as far as climate change, nobody denies it exists, climates always change

 

where people disagree is 3 things

 

1) the amount man has affected it (the left uses co2 levels which I discussed earlier) rising co2 is no sign of alarm

 

2) even if man has affected it, what is the outcome, is it really such a global catastrophe

 

3) what if anything can be done by the government to fix them, and why should we trust them to do so.  Pretty much everything govt controlled is fail


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#61 supermike80

supermike80

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,826 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:25 PM

I don't know what is or isn't true. I think the argument that 97% believe in climate change but not the degree of climate change is a good one.
I also believe that humans with resources do actually want to use renewables if it's feasible.
I would love to install solar panels but the cost and the fact I live in Michigan make that not feasible.
Finally I believe people are fundamentally gullible and scared.
I don't believe 97% or whatever of scientists are bought and paid for just as I don't believe the 3% are either.
But i think they are starting with a hypothesis based on natural human fear and validating this hypothesis.
You can't really prove a negative.

All I know is this has been a topic since What? The 70's?
New York,Florida and California are still above water and i have yet to hear about a mass exodus from those vulnerable areas.

Again, I don't know what's true. But So far I see little effect outside of glaciers in Antarctica.

I have yet to see any direct human or animal impacts

If you are going to debate me on this bulletin board,

start with this premise..

You win.  And I don't care.


#62 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:48 PM

I don't know what is or isn't true. I think the argument that 97% believe in climate change but not the degree of climate change is a good one.
I also believe that humans with resources do actually want to use renewables if it's feasible.
I would love to install solar panels but the cost and the fact I live in Michigan make that not feasible.
Finally I believe people are fundamentally gullible and scared.
I don't believe 97% or whatever of scientists are bought and paid for just as I don't believe the 3% are either.
But i think they are starting with a hypothesis based on natural human fear and validating this hypothesis.
You can't really prove a negative.

All I know is this has been a topic since What? The 70's?
New York,Florida and California are still above water and i have yet to hear about a mass exodus from those vulnerable areas.

Again, I don't know what's true. But So far I see little effect outside of glaciers in Antarctica.

I have yet to see any direct human or animal impacts

 

solar panels is a negative net production, the fact that you actually have no way of storing solar effeciently, without using regular electricity says about all we need

 

solar batteries require more strip mining of rare resources to make, but hey thats what those kids in Africa are for

 

also check out what happened in Germany when they implemented solar

 

costs rose 40% and they had to sell it off for less than it cost to produce

 

also cutting fossil fuels effects the poor more than anything


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#63 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 25,942 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:57 PM

I honestly don't care if global warming is real.

There are a plethora of other good reasons to change our energy habits.

I won't be around anyway, and I ain't breeding, so whatever.

But the right are idiots. You want to attack how the problem has been handled by corrupt democrat administrations? Sure. That's fair.

But pretending that the 3% of scientists funded by big oil and right wing groups are more believable than those of every country on the damn planet is just dumb.

#64 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 25,942 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:59 PM

 
solar panels is a negative net production, the fact that you actually have no way of storing solar effeciently, without using regular electricity says about all we need
 
solar batteries require more strip mining of rare resources to make, but hey thats what those kids in Africa are for
 
also check out what happened in Germany when they implemented solar
 
costs rose 40% and they had to sell it off for less than it cost to produce
 
also cutting fossil fuels effects the poor more than anything


Yeah. I'm betting at first, the internal combustion engine was kind of worthless. Probably cost a lot more to use than a focking horse did.

But it improves. Technology has a way of doing that.

Saying "ah Fock it. The other sh!t is expensive. Let's just use coal and oil forever" is dumb. Because there won't be coal and oil forever.

#65 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:01 PM

TBB, you are smarter than that, make an argument without using the 97% tag line

 

seriously

 

every person and every scientist believes in climate change, there is ALWAYS climate change, thats why the left took this term, its impossible to disagree.

 

again I feel like I am repeating stuff over and over, I just said not more than 4 posts up the actual rationale behind it

 

and I have never made an argument about funding whatsoever


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#66 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:05 PM

Yeah. I'm betting at first, the internal combustion engine was kind of worthless. Probably cost a lot more to use than a focking horse did.

But it improves. Technology has a way of doing that.

Saying "ah Fock it. The other sh!t is expensive. Let's just use coal and oil forever" is dumb. Because there won't be coal and oil forever.

 

except everything is made out of carbon, its continually being produced, fracking has taken clean energy to the next level, we have an infinite amount of natural gas as well.

 

look I am not saying Solar is a bad thing, it saves me money, I have 90 solar panels, but thats the only reason I have them, they have tried mass projects near me, the Mojave desert and it has been a disaster, Palm Springs has thousands of windmills and their energy costs are even higher, cause they have to ship the electricity out and pay for it to come back, sure keep working on perfecting it, I think its a smart idea that all houses be built with solar as well mandatory, but to think its the solution is wrong

 

Nuclear is the best solution regarding energy but it has such a negative mark behind it


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#67 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 25,942 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:06 PM

TBB, you are smarter than that, make an argument without using the 97% tag line
 
seriously
 
every person and every scientist believes in climate change, there is ALWAYS climate change, thats why the left took this term, its impossible to disagree.
 
again I feel like I am repeating stuff over and over, I just said not more than 4 posts up the actual rationale behind it
 
and I have never made an argument about funding whatsoever


My point is merely that out of all the countries in the world, all but three agree it's a big problem.

But even if it's not, there are other reasons we must eliminate fossil fuels.

And it seems pretty onvious to me that pumping trillions of tons of sh!t into the air will have negative effects. And it's just getting started. China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia... as these regions develop and have more cars and factories, it will be a huge problem.

#68 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 25,942 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:10 PM

 
except everything is made out of carbon, its continually being produced, fracking has taken clean energy to the next level, we have an infinite amount of natural gas as well.
 
look I am not saying Solar is a bad thing, it saves me money, I have 90 solar panels, but thats the only reason I have them, they have tried mass projects near me, the Mojave desert and it has been a disaster, Palm Springs has thousands of windmills and their energy costs are even higher, cause they have to ship the electricity out and pay for it to come back, sure keep working on perfecting it, I think its a smart idea that all houses be built with solar as well mandatory, but to think its the solution is wrong
 
Nuclear is the best solution regarding energy but it has such a negative mark behind it


I agree. We don't have the solution yet. Solar is a part, but can't be all of it. Yet. Maybe never can.

Wind is largely bullsh!t.

Hydro is great, but not amole enough. Same with tidal and geothermal.

Nuclear is good, but it scares people. And it has its own problems, like waste disposal.

We don't know what the answer is. It can't be fossil fuels forever though. I just want to see us invest in finding the answer. Because the country that does wins the next century.

That said, so far, we have failed miserably, because we don't have a government, we have corrupt bickering children.

#69 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:19 PM

I agree. We don't have the solution yet. Solar is a part, but can't be all of it. Yet. Maybe never can.

Wind is largely bullsh!t.

Hydro is great, but not amole enough. Same with tidal and geothermal.

Nuclear is good, but it scares people. And it has its own problems, like waste disposal.

We don't know what the answer is. It can't be fossil fuels forever though. I just want to see us invest in finding the answer. Because the country that does wins the next century.

That said, so far, we have failed miserably, because we don't have a government, we have corrupt bickering children.

 

see why cant we put together a technology that cleans fossil fuel waste? why not invest in that, fossil fuels are the most effecient means for energy hands down.

 

Im not sure where you stand on the Paris accord, but according to your first response, you mention 4 major countries that dont have to follow it for years, yet the left (not saying you) has claimed us breaking the Paris accord as a bad thing

 

if everyone globaly isn't on the same page its irrelevant.  Air pollution and water pollution are major problems, ones that the US faced years back, and you know what, technology advanced to where our energy is now cleaner and our disposal is better

 

who knows how much money globally has been spent on this global warming, climate change stuff, but if all that money was invested into fossil fuels, and nuclear over the last 20 years, we might have already found a solution


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#70 12th Man

12th Man

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,977 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:25 PM

 

Perhaps you should follow the money for those firmly denying climate change as well. 



#71 kutulu

kutulu

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 56,308 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:27 PM

Yeah, science, b1tch! :banana:
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human faceforever.

#72 giraldi02

giraldi02

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 6,099 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:40 PM

Judith Curry does believe in man made climate change though. She doesn't agree with the group think mentality of doom and gloom presenting an immediate danger. She's one of the most level-headed people in the field imo.

And that's where people need to meet.

You can safely say that man made pollutants are causing atmospheric changes.

You can also safely say that the world isn't going to be flooded in 50 years because of it.

The flat out deniers of man made climate change are ignorant however.

You can be skeptical of how severe the effects are on the planet. To disavow the fact mankind is focking up the atmosphere, even in the most minute of ways, I just cannot get on board with.

I get the skepticism. I really do. Additionally, it ultimately will take those that are severely pushing MMCC to pull themselves more towards the Middle and admit that their doom rhetoric is excessive.

WPIAFP

 


#73 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 25,942 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:43 PM

 
see why cant we put together a technology that cleans fossil fuel waste? why not invest in that, fossil fuels are the most effecient means for energy hands down.
 
Im not sure where you stand on the Paris accord, but according to your first response, you mention 4 major countries that dont have to follow it for years, yet the left (not saying you) has claimed us breaking the Paris accord as a bad thing.


Because cleaning fossil fuel is a temporary fix. There aren't any new fossils turning into oil fast enough to keep pace with exploding demand.

And it still doesn't solve the strategic problems that come with it.

I'll agree with nuclear. Much more should be invested there.

I don't have an opinion on the Paris accords as I am not educated enough on it. Neither are any of the others who act like they've read the damn thing, but I'll refrain.

#74 RaiderHater's Revenge

RaiderHater's Revenge

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,996 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:51 PM

Because cleaning fossil fuel is a temporary fix. There aren't any new fossils turning into oil fast enough to keep pace with exploding demand.

And it still doesn't solve the strategic problems that come with it.

I'll agree with nuclear. Much more should be invested there.

I don't have an opinion on the Paris accords as I am not educated enough on it. Neither are any of the others who act like they've read the damn thing, but I'll refrain.

 

true I am not educated on the Paris accord, but on the surface, saying the US has to pay all this money and China doesnt have to follow it for years is enough for me

 

as far as fossil fuel being temporary, who knows, we never realized all the oil we had in the US all along, and 10 years ago fracking didnt exist.  Carbon is in abundance, maybe in 30 years we can draw it from the atmosphere and replenish it with our usage.


Suck it Rockford---

 

The Right protests the killing of babies, the left protests EVERYTHING else


#75 Hardcore troubadour

Hardcore troubadour

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 34,022 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 09:15 PM

Less pollution would be a good thing.

#76 SUXBNME

SUXBNME

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 49,856 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 01:18 AM

 

 

every person and every scientist believes in climate change, there is ALWAYS climate change, thats why the left took this term, its impossible to disagree.

 

 

 

Couldn't prove MMGW - Check

Couldn't prove GW - Check

 

Hey, we need a new catchy phrase along these same lines that the idiots donors can now feel better about without having to worry about being called out on any of those pesky factual inaccuracies that have plagued our fallacy of a cause since it's inception...Hmm

 

"I Know...Let's morph this b1tch into 'Climate Change' "  :banana:



#77 SUXBNME

SUXBNME

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 49,856 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 01:19 AM

Less pollution would be a good thing.

Tell your mom to close her legs on occasion  :dunno:



#78 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,088 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 04:14 AM

Just out of curiosity, how many of those experts are bought and paid for by an administration that granted funds to proposals whose purpose was to show global warming?

All the grants go to the folks with what your throwing money at. It's more " big science" than anything else at this point.

Where do you think climatologists work?

 

Using your logic, it would be difficult to trust any theoretical scientist. As a general rule, they aren't employees of private corporations or independently wealthy, paying for their experiments out-of-pocket. The bulk of research funding is derived from the government. But if it isn't, how can you ensure the scientists aren't fudging their data to please their bosses?



#79 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,088 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 04:16 AM

 

since you bring up professors

 

just food for thought, most professors are liberals, and think socialism is good

Link?



#80 Hardcore troubadour

Hardcore troubadour

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 34,022 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 07:15 AM

Where do you think climatologists work?
 
Using your logic, it would be difficult to trust any theoretical scientist. As a general rule, they aren't employees of private corporations or independently wealthy, paying for their experiments out-of-pocket. The bulk of research funding is derived from the government. But if it isn't, how can you ensure the scientists aren't fudging their data to please their bosses?

So, a scientist wouldn't fudge data to please their govt bosses? The Govt plays it down the
middle? It can't have a desired outcome?