- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:14 am to Powerman
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:14 am to Powerman
quote:
Well if you don't understand how it works you won't understand the answer to this question either
Oh please. I know the fricking scientific method. Given that you've already professed ignorance of the subject, perhaps you should sit this one out.
2
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:17 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
consensus
Preach brother. Preach. You are so right.
Last I checked - science wasn’t up for a vote. Global warming. Climate change. Whatever you want to call it is just fashion until there is true, evidence based information supporting, and thus proving this popular theory.
Any scientist will tell you that there is a difference btwn correlation and causation. The only scientists who don’t know the difference seem to be “climate” scientists.
And I love the skepticism of “big oil” when the true people making money off the idea of climate change are grant writing scientists and “green” businesses. How much will a set of solar panels set you back again?? I don’t think that the Chinese business that build the only ones that are remotely affordable are doing it pro bono.
Both categories (grant writers and businesses making $$ on the climate change fad) have more to gain from proving that they have the magic bullet to “cure” this “problem” than big oil has to gain by disproving it.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:18 am to Powerman
1) The logic that man is causing climate catastrophe is just not there
2) Even if man were causing changes, we have no real way of measuring it and have no realistic way to change it.
3) The left lies. You cant rely on anything the left asserts except that its a lie to promote another agenda
4) Manmade climate change is being spearheaded by the left...which means its a lie or at least blown out of proportion
2) Even if man were causing changes, we have no real way of measuring it and have no realistic way to change it.
3) The left lies. You cant rely on anything the left asserts except that its a lie to promote another agenda
4) Manmade climate change is being spearheaded by the left...which means its a lie or at least blown out of proportion
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:19 am to Powerman
quote:
Because your logic on the topic is clearly very politically motivated
You mean you used that as as reason to simply dismiss.
And that's all you've done in this thread.
Everything you don't like = "politically motivated".
Heads I win, tails you lose type shite.
quote:Another assumption........again, simply a method for you to say, "meh, I'm not going to address that point".
Your hatred for all things left wing obscures the truth for you on this issue
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:21 am to Powerman
Powerman: What if this science is correct too?:
The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.
Read more: LINK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LINK
The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.
Read more: LINK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LINK
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:22 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Oh please. I know the fricking scientific method.
Right. Except I can easily point to a post of yours in this very thread where you demonstrate that you don't.
Here is one of the dumbest things you've said in your life:
quote:
If the ONLY place you can get funded to do research counter to the dogma is the fossil fuel companies, then you just made my point dumb arse.
This is where you have it wrong. People are paid to study something. They aren't paid to come up with a conclusion. The conclusion is what it is.
What the big oil companies did was find people who already came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be worried about and then trotted out those people who legitimately believed that to try to sway people that the topic was more debated than what it really is.
They didn't need to find a scientist and tell them to fabricate something. They just needed to find existing scientists with contrarian conclusions and pass their views off as mainstream.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:25 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Another assumption.......
It's an educated guess
You're logical enough to where it's the only explanation
Again let's review the genetically modified food thing. The vast majority of science on the matter concludes it's perfectly safe to eat. If I determined from these conclusions that it's safe for me to eat GMO food would you be throwing rocks at me? Would you be making fun of me saying I didn't come up with the conclusions on my own and am just following what smart people said?
If not why not?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:26 am to Powerman
quote:
What the big oil companies did was find people who already came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be worried about and then trotted out those people who legitimately believed that to try to sway people that the topic was more debated than what it really is.
Exxon Mobile acknowledged climate change long ago.
To me the issue is fear mongering. Throwing out doomsday predictions as they were fact
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:27 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Exxon Mobile acknowledged climate change long ago.
Right
And some here still haven't. Should be a little alarming no? One of the entities that tried to downplay climate change now acknowledges it because the evidence is that damning?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:31 am to Powerman
quote:
Should be a little alarming no?
Probably more related to litigation. The best approach is to say nothing
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:33 am to Powerman
quote:my main problem with the whole charade is that its getting all the conservation attention, when there are actually environmental and ecological issues that are much more important and verifiably caused by man (deforestation, toxic pollution, etc..). Treating a weak greenhouse gas like it's going to destroy the world when the physics of how that gas behaves contradicts that position is the definition of bad science fear mongering. CO2 very quickly loses its capacity to retain more heat as concentrations increase, and we are very near that saturation point already. We could ramp up our co2 output massively and the heat retained my the co2 would barely change because of masking. This is why we have had ice ages during times where co2 concentration was 12x what it currently is. That's actual science. My other problem with the whole thing is one highlighted by your post. The case people present in favor of it almost always is just a use of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. They trot out the '97% of scientists' bullshite and talk about 'consensus'. There is nothing more anti science than trying to stifle dissenting views on a matter by citing consensus. Consensus is not a scientific term, it's a political one. Every single major scientific advancement or discovery in history was the result of a single person or small group going against consensus.
What is the conspiracy that I'm missing?
ETA - And I hope all of you realize that if you take this stance you are in fact subscribing to a conspiracy theory.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 11:37 am
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:33 am to RogerTheShrubber
I'm not talking about litigation. I'm talking about what people believe.
When the people who initially sought to deceive the public about climate change are now coming out and saying it's real yet people still believe it's a hoax that says something disturbing about our society.
When the people who initially sought to deceive the public about climate change are now coming out and saying it's real yet people still believe it's a hoax that says something disturbing about our society.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:33 am to ShortyRob
quote:
As I said before, does causation really matter? Shouldn't we be worrying about the IMPACT regardless of cause? If large parts of Miami or New York or Washington go underwater do we really care about the cause or do we care about how we can mitigate the effects?
quote:
I addressed this earlier. The answer is "yes" but there's more. So, I'll ask you. What OTHER information would you like to have to determine what you might want to do regarding Miami going under water? There are some questions you should most certainly be asking. Questions that frankly, are largely NOT asked.
That is what the true believers miss.
All of Florida has been underwater before in the past.
Hell a few hundred million years from now it is possible that all of the land masses will ram in to Antartica.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:34 am to Powerman
quote:
What is the conspiracy that I'm missing?
Since 'conspiracy' can mean simple collaboration (for bad or noble reasons), there is indeed a conspiracy among several governments to induce people to behave in a certain way.
The Paris Accord is ample evidence of that conspiracy.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:35 am to Powerman
Our climate has been going through cyclical change, measured over the last 400,000 years or so, with temperature cycles occurring every 80,000 years or so. I have issues with people who say man burning fossil fuel is causing what we see. Stone age man wasn't burning Texaco. Suggesting otherwise is the "hoax".
MAGA
MAGA
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:36 am to Powerman
Why would disagreeing with a statement, or believing or dis-believing a statement, make you a subscriber to a conspiracy theory?
By the very nature of your statement you have discounted science at its very nature as either accepted believe or conspiracy theory, which it is neither. Science is about theory, research, discussion, hypothesis, etc - none of which are finite or finalized in any instance of the process of discovery or rediscovery.
For instance, if someone were to make the statement as some have, that there are far more hurricanes today than 50 or 100 years ago and there fore this is proof that climate change exists - that is opinion they express based on an observation. However, if you were to counter this statement with contrary information such as there are more hurricanes recorded today because we have advanced technology that allows us to identify, locate and measure storms with far more accuracy than we could 50 years ago because we have satellites and dopler radar and that upwards to 30% of tropical activity or cyclone activity between 1880 and 1960 went unreported because storms did not make landfall or inaccuracies failed to register the storm, this does not make you a denier of the first statement, simply you are providing a counter opinion with other qualifiers. An audience would be free to make an educated decision based on the opinions or theories placed before them. This is what the scientific community engages in. The media on the other hand engages in labeling something a hoax, a person a denier, science as decided - none of which are accurate and any disagreement is attacked which is also unscientific.
By the very nature of your statement you have discounted science at its very nature as either accepted believe or conspiracy theory, which it is neither. Science is about theory, research, discussion, hypothesis, etc - none of which are finite or finalized in any instance of the process of discovery or rediscovery.
For instance, if someone were to make the statement as some have, that there are far more hurricanes today than 50 or 100 years ago and there fore this is proof that climate change exists - that is opinion they express based on an observation. However, if you were to counter this statement with contrary information such as there are more hurricanes recorded today because we have advanced technology that allows us to identify, locate and measure storms with far more accuracy than we could 50 years ago because we have satellites and dopler radar and that upwards to 30% of tropical activity or cyclone activity between 1880 and 1960 went unreported because storms did not make landfall or inaccuracies failed to register the storm, this does not make you a denier of the first statement, simply you are providing a counter opinion with other qualifiers. An audience would be free to make an educated decision based on the opinions or theories placed before them. This is what the scientific community engages in. The media on the other hand engages in labeling something a hoax, a person a denier, science as decided - none of which are accurate and any disagreement is attacked which is also unscientific.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:36 am to Powerman
Honest answer for an honest question?
Mainly because it’s Democrats and liberals pushing it
Mainly because it’s Democrats and liberals pushing it
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:36 am to mofungoo
quote:
I have issues with people who say man burning fossil fuel is causing what we see.
So you reject the scientific consensus on the matter and join the conspiracy theory belief club.
Don't wear a tin foil hat if it gets much hotter out there
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:37 am to Klark Kent
quote:
Honest answer for an honest question?
Mainly because it’s Democrats and liberals pushing it
You're honest but what if this is one of the rare time that they're right?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:38 am to Powerman
quote:consensus is a word that has no place in science, you insufferable tool
scientific consensus
Page 19 of 40
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News