Massive Global Warming Protest

[!! Shawn]

Go ahead and present them. Just saying it doesn't make it so.



This is an oddly graphic statement.



I agree that the way the media jump on scientific findings and publish them as facts is extreme. One recent case was the MMR jab which now has hundreds of thousands of people CONVINCED that it causes autism despite that fact that the only study that made such a finding has been widely discredited and has been replicated numerous times with the conclusion that there is no significant link between the MMR jab and autism. Curiously enough it is often the same people who suggest that studies which link global warming to human activity are a liberal conspiracy who espouse the notion that "science" thinks that MMR vaccination causes autism!



Nearly every scientist working i the field of climatology or meteorology will tell you that climate change is anthropogenic. I backed it up. Simply saying otherwise does not make it so.



While accurate readings of the earth's surface only existed up to 120 years ago data on climate is available from contemporary and geological sources. Geologists and climatologists have been able to map a trend out over millions of years. Temperature ****ed at the advent of human agriculture and has ****ed again following the advent of human industry.



They don't teach you to read in Las Vegas? Extremes of cold in winter and extremes of heat in summer as well as disruptions of normal weather patterns are a prediction of the global warming model.



"The Media" includes the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Newsweek etc. There is no consensus in the media, that much is obvious. There is, however, consensus among scientists in relevant fields.



Again you are making things up. While I agree that media hyperbole does nothing to help our situation, trying to pretend that nothing is happening and if it is it isn't our fault is fiddling while rome burns.

I dislike that climate change has become a partisan issue because you have to contend with bull**** from both sides. Climate science has been hijacked by the anti-capitalist mob. The "environmental movement" can go fuck off, their agenda is frankly idiotic. They are luddites and are calling for nothing less than the end of civilization as we know it. Whatever happens with the climate, the planet will still be OK. Destroying civilization in order to save civilization is no sort of solution at all.

I'm not partisan on the issue. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect it has something to do with either new technology or an outside-the-box approach to lessening the effects of climate change rather than a futile attempt at stopping it from happening.



I'm not sure what to make of this. Without education studies what do we rely on? Oil companies? Republican politicians? Al Gore? Public opinion polls?

When we think of the scientific advances we make use of every day I am baffled that in this single area (oh and probably in the field of evolution too) we should disregard the results of scientific study as inherently unreliable. It's troubling when people reach these conclusions.



The research is done in academic institutions, not on behalf of environmental companies. The research conclusions are being questioned here, not the fact that some companies are managing to make money from environmental projects.

Its nice to know you reject the partisan politics of global warming, unfortunately, with your history of pronounced liberalism, I don't believe that to be the case.

The problem with all theories of global warming is that they are inherently unprovable.

Take this for example. There is a room full of doctors examining a mute man with a horribly mangled arm.

One doctor says: He was obviously hit by a car!
Another says: No, he was obviously beaten with a baseball bat!
Another says: You are both wrong, he obviously got it caught in machinery!

Every explanation is plausible, but since the man cannot talk, they are just speculating.

The human contribution to global warming can neither be proven nor dis proven. If there is any unanimity among the scientific community, it is that the effects of global warming are not as catastrophic as the media would lead you to believe.

In a few years time they (the media) will find another doomsday scenario to latch on too and you will never hear of global warming again.

[Hitman932]

squeal has been unable to refute my theory.

[Welter_Skelter]

Go ahead and present them. Just saying it doesn't make it so.



This is an oddly graphic statement.



I agree that the way the media jump on scientific findings and publish them as facts is extreme. One recent case was the MMR jab which now has hundreds of thousands of people CONVINCED that it causes autism despite that fact that the only study that made such a finding has been widely discredited and has been replicated numerous times with the conclusion that there is no significant link between the MMR jab and autism. Curiously enough it is often the same people who suggest that studies which link global warming to human activity are a liberal conspiracy who espouse the notion that "science" thinks that MMR vaccination causes autism!



Nearly every scientist working i the field of climatology or meteorology will tell you that climate change is anthropogenic. I backed it up. Simply saying otherwise does not make it so.



While accurate readings of the earth's surface only existed up to 120 years ago data on climate is available from contemporary and geological sources. Geologists and climatologists have been able to map a trend out over millions of years. Temperature ****ed at the advent of human agriculture and has ****ed again following the advent of human industry.



They don't teach you to read in Las Vegas? Extremes of cold in winter and extremes of heat in summer as well as disruptions of normal weather patterns are a prediction of the global warming model.



"The Media" includes the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Newsweek etc. There is no consensus in the media, that much is obvious. There is, however, consensus among scientists in relevant fields.



Again you are making things up. While I agree that media hyperbole does nothing to help our situation, trying to pretend that nothing is happening and if it is it isn't our fault is fiddling while rome burns.

I dislike that climate change has become a partisan issue because you have to contend with bull**** from both sides. Climate science has been hijacked by the anti-capitalist mob. The "environmental movement" can go fuck off, their agenda is frankly idiotic. They are luddites and are calling for nothing less than the end of civilization as we know it. Whatever happens with the climate, the planet will still be OK. Destroying civilization in order to save civilization is no sort of solution at all.

I'm not partisan on the issue. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect it has something to do with either new technology or an outside-the-box approach to lessening the effects of climate change rather than a futile attempt at stopping it from happening.



I'm not sure what to make of this. Without education studies what do we rely on? Oil companies? Republican politicians? Al Gore? Public opinion polls?

When we think of the scientific advances we make use of every day I am baffled that in this single area (oh and probably in the field of evolution too) we should disregard the results of scientific study as inherently unreliable. It's troubling when people reach these conclusions.



The research is done in academic institutions, not on behalf of environmental companies. The research conclusions are being questioned here, not the fact that some companies are managing to make money from environmental projects.

The Highlighted... is easily the most brilliant thing you have ever said.. In light of knowing that.. I am surprised you cannot imagine many of those scientists being on the Commies pay roll..

[!! Shawn]

The Highlighted... is easily the most brilliant thing you have ever said.. In light of knowing that.. I am surprised you cannot imagine many of those scientists being on the Commies pay roll..

Its surprising that he has failed to draw the connection himself.

Scientists receive money to find evidence supporting global warming... I wonder what the results of their studies will be...

[squealpiggy]

Its nice to know you reject the partisan politics of global warming, unfortunately, with your history of pronounced liberalism, I don't believe that to be the case.

I'm never partisan. I call it as I see it. Did you see my stance on Israel? Or 9/11? Or police "brutality"? I have on numerous occasions been told to "go and watch Fox News" by left wing douchebags, I'm surprised you missed it.

The problem with all theories of global warming is that they are inherently unprovable.

Take this for example. There is a room full of doctors examining a mute man with a horribly mangled arm.

One doctor says: He was obviously hit by a car!
Another says: No, he was obviously beaten with a baseball bat!
Another says: You are both wrong, he obviously got it caught in machinery!

Every explanation is plausible, but since the man cannot talk, they are just speculating.

You see by taking that stance you effectively close down any type of investigative inquiry whether this is legal, scientific, criminal or logical. If everyone took the point of view that nothing was any more than speculation we wouldn't get anywhere.

The Highlighted... is easily the most brilliant thing you have ever said.. In light of knowing that.. I am surprised you cannot imagine many of those scientists being on the Commies pay roll..

Anti capitalists by definition do not have large reserves of cash to spend on nodding scientists. If it were at all likely that the thousands of scientists that make up the vast consensus about climate change were easily swayed by fat grant cheques then the consensus would follow the money, that is to say the role of human industry would be minimized because the guys with the money are the guys who make the money: industry.

[!! Shawn]

You see by taking that stance you effectively close down any type of investigative inquiry whether this is legal, scientific, criminal or logical. If everyone took the point of view that nothing was any more than speculation we wouldn't get anywhere.

When all else fails, use your old standby argument. "your position crushes science"

You seem to use it often

Anti capitalists by definition do not have large reserves of cash to spend on nodding scientists. If it were at all likely that the thousands of scientists that make up the vast consensus about climate change were easily swayed by fat grant cheques then the consensus would follow the money, that is to say the role of human industry would be minimized because the guys with the money are the guys who make the money: industry.

Logic is flawed for a few reasons.

1) George Sorros
2) You need public opinion to change the status quo, not to keep it the same. Big business is better served by investing in lobbyist than funding scientific studies that support their position.
3) You assume there isn't money in change... there is.

[squealpiggy]

When all else fails, use your old standby argument. "your position crushes science"

You seem to use it often

If your position is that knowing is impossible then yes, your position crushes science. I use it often because people use the argument that nothing is truly knowable often.

Logic is flawed for a few reasons.

1) George Sorros
2) You need public opinion to change the status quo, not to keep it the same. Big business is better served by investing in lobbyist than funding scientific studies that support their position.
3) You assume there isn't money in change... there is.

Big business does hire lobbyists. They also employ scientists who will present information as they require it. These scientists are however in the minority.

I'm not sure was Soros has to do with this discussion. I will say however that his $9 billion fortune is dwarfed by the $19 billion Shell puts into capital expenditure alone every year.

[Welter_Skelter]

I'm never partisan. I call it as I see it. Did you see my stance on Israel? Or 9/11? Or police "brutality"? I have on numerous occasions been told to "go and watch Fox News" by left wing douchebags, I'm surprised you missed it.



You see by taking that stance you effectively close down any type of investigative inquiry whether this is legal, scientific, criminal or logical. If everyone took the point of view that nothing was any more than speculation we wouldn't get anywhere.



Anti capitalists by definition do not have large reserves of cash to spend on nodding scientists. If it were at all likely that the thousands of scientists that make up the vast consensus about climate change were easily swayed by fat grant cheques then the consensus would follow the money, that is to say the role of human industry would be minimized because the guys with the money are the guys who make the money: industry.

They sure do.. when the Green taxes world wide passed 700 billion dollars last year.. Think a few Commies might actually be in government?? if they are organised enough to hijack the media.. Then I imagine they have people in government too.. In Europe it seems they ARE the Government

[!! Shawn]

If your position is that knowing is impossible then yes, your position crushes science. I use it often because people use the argument that nothing is truly knowable often.



Big business does hire lobbyists. They also employ scientists who will present information as they require it. These scientists are however in the minority.

I'm not sure was Soros has to do with this discussion. I will say however that his $9 billion fortune is dwarfed by the $19 billion Shell puts into capital expenditure alone every year.

No, I said that the current theories are unprovable. Unprovable theories crush science. You support unprovable theories, therefore you = anti-science knowledge crushing liberal.

[Welter_Skelter]

So much science gets proven wrong over time.. I love science.. and when it's absolute.. Its FUCKING absolute..

But the moment words like "Could be" "most Likely" "our projections" are involved.. It ceases to be absolute .. and once it isn't absolute.. it's speculation..
and once it's speculation.. It is no more scientific than religion..

"Does" "without a doubt" "conclusive" Until these words are used.. it's all smoke and Mirrors.

The Climate change "Industry" is rife with words like from the former group..