Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
The real good ad hom attacks have just started. Questioning other people's intelligence, name calling, etc..
 
nutzo said:
Like may pro-global warming believers, you don't seem to have any faith in the free markets.

We burn hydrocarbons because it's the cheapest form of energy. It's not going to wake up one day, and they are all gone. As we use them up, they will be harder to aquire and the price will go up. At some point there will be cheaper sources of energy, either because someone invents a new source, or because the old sources become too expensive.
Either way, the market will adjust. Trying to force people to use overpriced energy before it's needed only makes us all poorer.

And before you accuse me of not caring about energy use, I drive a Hybrid because it makes sense (saves me money) due to my 95% city driving. I also use energy efficient lights in my house, and have started using LED lights now that the prices have come down. My carbon footprint is probably a lot smaller than most the people pushing these carbon trading schemes.
Click to expand...

Who says the market will adjust before the environment does? There could be enough oil to turn this planet black long before it runs so low that it becomes cost prohibitive to use. The market will never right itself if the very thing destroying us is in ample supply.
 
McFry said:
Who says the market will adjust before the environment does? There could be enough oil to turn this planet black long before it runs so low that it becomes cost prohibitive to use. The market will never right itself if the very thing destroying us is in ample supply.
Click to expand...

this is a reasonable objection. That could very well turn out to be the case.

However, as I stated before, there will be enormously profitable opportunities for mitigating the effects of climate change. It stands to reason we will eventually find ways to reverse at least some of the ill effects.
 
runffs said:
HAHA Climate change true believers.

Guys they can't tell us what the weather is gonna be in 5 FIVE days. Why in the hell would I believe that know what the hell is going on in 50 years?
Click to expand...

HAHAH Doctors, they cant even tell me when I'll get cancer, why should I believe them if they say it's from smoking?
 
spintroniX said:
this is a reasonable objection. That could very well turn out to be the case.

However, as I stated before, there will be enormously profitable opportunities for mitigating the effects of climate change. It stands to reason we will eventually find ways to reverse at least some of the ill effects.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, and the pharmaceutical industry is quite profitable and treating diseases instead of curing them.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
Climate change is bullshit plain and simple. A tool for political power and control.
Remember when the term "Climate Change" didn't exist? They said "Global Warming" then they realized they couldn't support the warming rhetoric long term so they made the problem more ambiguous by calling it "climate change".
When are people going to realize that the powers that be don't give a rats ass about the environment, or the poor, or education or anything. All they care about is keeping themselves in power and lining their pockets with stupid peoples money.

They don't care about you!

George Carlin sums it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
Click to expand...

Except in this case George Carlin is not a scientist and I rather listen to scientist then a comedian who made his career being edgy while living the life he made fun of.
 
m heisty said:
I fail to believe in studies that rely on manipulated and out right false data to arrive at a preconceived result. So go ahead and blink at the screen. The hysteria over global warming is nothing more than an attempt at wealth redistribution on a level that has never before been seen.
Click to expand...

There is some merit to this statement.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/01/cas...he_people_making_a_killing_on_climate_change/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/19/how-to-make-money-off-of-global-warming-fears/

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/18/6031219/how-to-profit-off-of-global-warming

Climate change is real.

It is happening. Weather or not we are directly involved is arguable. But the Earth does go through cycles. Companies and governments are starting to use "Climate Change" as a marketing catch phrase to make huge profits off peoples fears. Its business as usual of course.
 
fixedmy7970 said:
actually, i said global warmers (?) are equivalent to religious nuts.
Click to expand...
Actually, man made climate change is backed by the scientific consensus (observational fact). Religion is backed by nothing. They're incomparable. You're crazy. What is a global warmer anyway? lol
 
We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigor from its adherents.

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.
 
RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE- On Global Warming Fears: I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
 
JaiWebb said:
Actually, man made climate change is backed by the scientific consensus (observational fact)
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the Earth is flat...BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Man Bear Pig wins AGAIN!

MANBEARPIG_by_Helwan.png
 
nutzo said:
Like may pro-global warming believers, you don't seem to have any faith in the free markets.
Click to expand...
The free market has been AWESOME regarding environmental issues. Say what you will, they sure end up protecting the planet.
 
tetris42 said:
The free market has been AWESOME regarding environmental issues. Say what you will, they sure end up protecting the planet.
Click to expand...

actually, most abuses of the environment by the "free market" happen because land / water is not privately owned. When it is polluted, nobody has an incentive or right to sue the offending business. When land is "publicly" owned, business generally gets to buy passes (called permits) to pollute.

This, coupled with the indemnity a corporation gives its owners, makes it impossible to seek remedies when pollution becomes a problem.

If most land / water were privately owned, and corporations weren't one way money funnels created by the government, then business would have to think twice about polluting the environment, as it could mean bankruptcy instead of a slap on the wrist by the EPA that amounts to a few days/weeks of profit.
 
spintroniX said:
actually, most abuses of the environment by the "free market" happen because land / water is not privately owned. When it is polluted, nobody has an incentive or right to sue the offending business. When land is "publicly" owned, business generally gets to buy passes (called permits) to pollute.

This, coupled with the indemnity a corporation gives its owners, makes it impossible to seek remedies when pollution becomes a problem.

If most land / water were privately owned, and corporations weren't one way money funnels created by the government, then business would have to think twice about polluting the environment, as it could mean bankruptcy instead of a slap on the wrist by the EPA that amounts to a few days/weeks of profit.
Click to expand...

So if there's no structure in which to support filing a lawsuit and process to settle a dispute like that because a government has no power to regulate business activity, how exactly does a company get held accountable again? Does a swarm of death unicorns answer a ritual summoning and go in with eye lasers blazing instead?
 
spintroniX said:
actually, most abuses of the environment by the "free market" happen because land / water is not privately owned. When it is polluted, nobody has an incentive or right to sue the offending business. When land is "publicly" owned, business generally gets to buy passes (called permits) to pollute.

This, coupled with the indemnity a corporation gives its owners, makes it impossible to seek remedies when pollution becomes a problem.

If most land / water were privately owned, and corporations weren't one way money funnels created by the government, then business would have to think twice about polluting the environment, as it could mean bankruptcy instead of a slap on the wrist by the EPA that amounts to a few days/weeks of profit.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure how private ownership of all rivers, streams, lakes and oceans would work. Let alone private ownership of the atmosphere. That would be wealth redistribution far beyond everything of that advocated my climate change folks.
 
spintroniX said:
actually, most abuses of the environment by the "free market" happen because land / water is not privately owned. When it is polluted, nobody has an incentive or right to sue the offending business. When land is "publicly" owned, business generally gets to buy passes (called permits) to pollute.

This, coupled with the indemnity a corporation gives its owners, makes it impossible to seek remedies when pollution becomes a problem.

If most land / water were privately owned, and corporations weren't one way money funnels created by the government, then business would have to think twice about polluting the environment, as it could mean bankruptcy instead of a slap on the wrist by the EPA that amounts to a few days/weeks of profit.
Click to expand...
How do you judge a polluted environment? If we compare urban environments over the last 1000 years our cities are MUCH cleaner. We can go back a couple of decades and a lake in Ohio was so polluted it caught on fire. The more things improve the less happy green wacko's are...
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
So if there's no structure in which to support filing a lawsuit and process to settle a dispute like that because a government has no power to regulate business activity, how exactly does a company get held accountable again? Does a swarm of death unicorns answer a ritual summoning and go in with eye lasers blazing instead?
Click to expand...

Free markets does not mean no regulation.
 
thejokker said:
How do you judge a polluted environment? If we compare urban environments over the last 1000 years our cities are MUCH cleaner. We can go back a couple of decades and a lake in Ohio was so polluted it caught on fire. The more things improve the less happy green wacko's are...
Click to expand...

So as long as water doesn't catch fire we're good and any other environmental concerns are wacko? I'm not saying that what you mean here, but setting the bar of environmental expectations to water not catching on fire is pretty low.
 
nutzo said:
Free markets does not mean no regulation.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it does mean there's no regulation. A market that is free is unregulated. If there's any sort of regulation, then it's not free. Which, I suppose, means that death unicorns with eye lasers are technically some kind of regulation too.
 
nutzo said:
Free markets does not mean no regulation.
Click to expand...

I think any situation where private concerns and capital can't do what they want, then technically that isn't a free market. I don't think honestly anyone believes in truly free markets. Indeed when it comes to subjects like net neutrality and telecom anti-trust, even the most conservative folks around here are pro-regulation. Probably because they see like most free markets being paid for with an increase in their communication costs.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
A market that is free is unregulated. If there's any sort of regulation, then it's not free.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert but I believe the idea is that a free market is regulated by the consumer. Free market means no regulation by a state body. Don't like your river lighting on fire? Then you don't support the companies polluting it. You buy a competitor's product instead. Or so the thinking goes.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
I'm no expert but I believe the idea is that a free market is regulated by the consumer. Free market means no regulation by a state body. Don't like your river lighting on fire? Then you don't support the companies polluting it. You buy a competitor's product instead. Or so the thinking goes.
Click to expand...

That was kinda my understanding of the situation too. By regulation, I was trying to say any change made to the market other than what would be encountered in that market that results from consumer and competitor activity including things like taxes or disclosure requirements for financial statements and rules that dictate certain accounting practices....that kinda junk...and death unicorns, of course.
 
heatlesssun said:
So as long as water doesn't catch fire we're good and any other environmental concerns are wacko? I'm not saying that what you mean here, but setting the bar of environmental expectations to water not catching on fire is pretty low.
Click to expand...
My point is from the viewpoint of the entire history of mankind 21st Century America may very well represent the pinnacle of respect for the environment yet extremists paint a very different picture. Because people have no conception of how things used to be 100 years or more ago they think things are bad today.

Most so called environmentalists have ZERO understanding of history and without that perspective most of what they believe to be true is wrong; i.e. most of them are stupid.
 
thejokker said:
My point is from the viewpoint of the entire history of mankind 21st Century America may very well represent the pinnacle of respect for the environment yet extremists paint a very different picture. Because people have no conception of how things used to be 100 years or more ago they think things are bad today.

Most so called environmentalists have ZERO understanding of history and without that perspective most of what they believe to be true is wrong; i.e. most of them are stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't follow this logic .... because we used to really destroy the environment, and now we destroy it less ... it makes it OK?
 
thejokker said:
Most so called environmentalists have ZERO understanding of history and without that perspective most of what they believe to be true is wrong; i.e. most of them are stupid.
Click to expand...

Source? Just wondering how you know for sure MOST (almost all) environmentalists are stupid. Or, do you just desire them to be? Because it fits your mindset?
 
You have to make a distinction between retarded environmentalists and rational ones. Retarded environmentalists will protest solar panels being put in the desert because the proposed area conflicts with the mating ground of some ridiculous endangered turtle. Rational environmentalists (i.e. conservationists) want to protect our ecosystem to the best of our ability, taking every issue on a case-by-case basis. On balance, what is the ecological impact of this?

There's retard nimby-ism and psychotic tree-hugging environmentalism. And then there's people who don't want idiotic, unnecessary damage done to our precious environment.
 
JaiWebb said:
Source? Just wondering how you know for sure MOST (almost all) environmentalists are stupid. Or, do you just desire them to be? Because it fits your mindset?
Click to expand...
Ever hear of the industrial revolution? Take a second to imagine what cities were like in the mid-19th century with factories belching out black smoke from coal burning plants. Cities with open sewer systems that reeked of human feces. Small wonder that the lifespan of human beings were significantly shorter than today. The very fact that you would challenge me on this point only illustrates the ignorance of most people and how that effect the dialogue on climate change.
 
thejokker said:
Ever hear of the industrial revolution? Take a second to imagine what cities were like in the mid-19th century with factories belching out black smoke from coal burning plants. Cities with open sewer systems that reeked of human feces. Small wonder that the lifespan of human beings were significantly shorter than today. The very fact that you would challenge me on this point only illustrates the ignorance of most people and how that effect the dialogue on climate change.
Click to expand...

The state of cities in the mid-19th century doesn't really address the question asked about the source of your claim that people who are concerned about their planet are stupid or have no perspective of Earth's history. I'd argue that many people performing research related to the environment's current conditions have a pretty good educational background and are keeping an eye on history as one can't really put the present into any sort of perspective without also conducting extensive research into the past to find data that demonstrates or disproves trends.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly sure how private ownership of all rivers, streams, lakes and oceans would work. Let alone private ownership of the atmosphere. That would be wealth redistribution far beyond everything of that advocated my climate change folks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean it's rare the pollution is CONTAINED to where it occurs. As long as there is a short or medium term profit incentive to pollute, it

How do you judge a polluted environment? If we compare urban environments over the last 1000 years our cities are MUCH cleaner. We can go back a couple of decades and a lake in Ohio was so polluted it caught on fire. The more things improve the less happy green wacko's are...
Click to expand...
You judge polluted environment by looking at everything. It is true that our urban environments ARE cleaner than they used to be. Some of our most hardcore pollution of the cities was happening from industrial revolution to before the invention of the automobile. Prior to that, the cities were literally getting overrun with horse shit.

The thing is, you can point to Ohio as being a success story, but in reality it's just a displacement. Our manufacturing base has fallen dramatically since then. You can find just as many pollution atrocities in China now, where a lot of the manufacturing is happening. Plus compared to hundreds of years ago, we can pollute in ways that simply weren't possible then (look at the toxic chemicals released from burning e-waste dumps in Africa), plus there's more of us, so pollution is more widespread, even if it could be less on an individual level. The Earth is still just as finite as it was then.
 
(can't edit) I meant to say earlier as long as there's a profit incentive towards polluting, that will win out over pretty much any other variables under a free market system. Afterall, it's not like you make MORE money paying for additional filters on smokestacks, having to contain and transport runoff, etc.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The state of cities in the mid-19th century doesn't really address the question asked about the source of your claim that people who are concerned about their planet are stupid or have no perspective of Earth's history. I'd argue that many people performing research related to the environment's current conditions have a pretty good educational background and are keeping an eye on history as one can't really put the present into any sort of perspective without also conducting extensive research into the past to find data that demonstrates or disproves trends.
Click to expand...
If the environment of the earth has improved tremendously in the last 200 years than how are we destroying the planet? Advancing the concept that we are destroying the earth only holds water if one is ignorant of the last 200+ years. If one is ignorant of the past and makes claims contrary to actual history than one might just be considered "stupid" by those with a greater appreciation of the history of mankind and planet earth.
 
HEY!

You all want to argue about global warming and carbon emissions? We guess what? All this bickering on message boards over it is contributing to it, so

STFU ALREADY.

Please. Do it for the planet. ;)
 
thejokker said:
If the environment of the earth has improved tremendously in the last 200 years than how are we destroying the planet? Advancing the concept that we are destroying the earth only holds water if one is ignorant of the last 200+ years. If one is ignorant of the past and makes claims contrary to actual history than one might just be considered "stupid" by those with a greater appreciation of the history of mankind and planet earth.
Click to expand...

I don't think the environment has improved tremendously in the last 200 years, but if you have evidence to the contrary to support that things were quite a bit worse in 1814 on a global scale, I'd love to look at it. In fact, I'd argue that the people you're accusing of having no perspective are probably much better informed about the conditions of the planet over the last 200 (and many, many more years) than either of us.
 
Phoenix333 said:
HEY!

You all want to argue about global warming and carbon emissions? We guess what? All this bickering on message boards over it is contributing to it, so

STFU ALREADY.

Please. Do it for the planet. ;)
Click to expand...

You again. You still haven't made yourself into a giant turkey sammich for me. :( At least cook your own goose. I can totally get my own bread, lettuce, and tomatoes.
 
Of course we are over polluting, of course it changes (fucks up) the environment.

Of course democrats are going to over exaggerate it and use it as firing power.

Of course republicans are going to deny all of it.

Buying a Prius, recycling, wearing a tie-dye shirt and Birkenstocks and using all apple products is not going to stop anything.

Denying science isn’t going to help anything either.

I suppose we are all doomed to eventually kill ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top