Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only thing worse than those who refuse to admit that they're wrong are those who try to deflect away from their wrongness.
 
Not sure where the history lessons started but why not. I think a lot of this debate over the notion of the flat earth is about an oversimplification of the subject and some lack of knowing basic history. The purpose of Columbus' was to discover a easier way to get to Asia, specially India by sailing west around the world. Clearly he and others at the time had a basic understanding that the world was indeed round because otherwise why would they have sailed in the opposite direction of their destination?

However, it wasn't exactly a solid fact and Columbus had no idea about the actual size of the Earth. That's why all this stuff got tagged Indian. He thought he was in India but was actually closer to Indiana. I'm kind of joking here, there seems to be some fuzziness over exactly when he realized that he hadn't reached Asia or India but he clearly was expecting to reach Asia and not a new part of the world because of he well off estimation of the size of the Earth. But he and others did realize soon enough that this was a new area of the world to Europeans and it wasn't long after that the true size and spherical shape of the Earth were confirmed facts.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not sure where the history lessons started but why not. I think a lot of this debate over the notion of the flat earth is about an oversimplification of the subject and some lack of knowing basic history. The purpose of Columbus' was to discover a easier way to get to Asia, specially India by sailing west around the world. Clearly he and others at the time had a basic understanding that the world was indeed round because otherwise why would they have sailed in the opposite direction of their destination?

However, it wasn't exactly a solid fact and Columbus had no idea about the actual size of the Earth. That's why all this stuff got tagged Indian. He thought he was in India but was actually closer to Indiana. I'm kind of joking here, there seems to be some fuzziness over exactly when he realized that he hadn't reached Asia or India but he clearly was expecting to reach Asia and not a new part of the world because of he well off estimation of the size of the Earth. But he and others did realize soon enough that this was a new area of the world to Europeans and it wasn't long after that the true size and spherical shape of the Earth were confirmed facts.
Click to expand...
Classical physics of the past 300 years is a better example. At a couple of points the physics community thought they had it all figured. First with ether and later without. If consensus was science there would be no relativity or quantum mechanics.

There's also the pervasive support of Geocentrism, that also was a view pushed by politics, religious politics. Geocentrism was something that was wanted by large power hungry body that 16th century religion had become. So if you wanted to be anybody, you supported it. Galileo the father of the 'Scientific Method' pushed the less common view of heliocentrism and was imprisoned for it.

The list goes on. Stomach Ulcers are caused by diet, stress and genetics for the first 30 years of my life that was the scientifically certain fact. Now they are treated successfully with antibiotics.
 
The centerpiece of the Global Warming debate revolves around the question as to whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Mann, Bradley and Hughes published papers based upon tree ring and ice core samples which concluded modern temperatures are warmer. A controversy exists however over this study. Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific method whereas scientists are expected to publish their data and methodology so as to allow other scientists to verify their results. Mann refused to do this.

Canadian geologist Stephen McIntyre literally had to sue the publishers of Mann's paper in order to get the data and found Mann had cherry picked tree core samples. Roughly 150 samples were obtained but Mann based his research on 10 - 12 samples which supported his hypothesis and ignored the 90% samples which did not support his hypothesis. This is the same Mann who was exposed in the Climategate scandal as a very shady character.

The debate continues over whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today. It should be noted that the Vikings named Greenland because of its lush vegetation and relatively mild climate during this warming period which bears little resemblance to the icy rock Greenland is today. It should also be noted that Global Warming as a nom de plume has fallen from favor substituting Climate Change instead. This suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today supporting MIT's Atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen assertion that today’s weather patterns fall within normal weather fluctuations.
 
thejokker said:
The centerpiece of the Global Warming debate revolves around the question as to whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Mann, Bradley and Hughes published papers based upon tree ring and ice core samples which concluded modern temperatures are warmer. A controversy exists however over this study. Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific method whereas scientists are expected to publish their data and methodology so as to allow other scientists to verify their results. Mann refused to do this.
Click to expand...
My understanding is this is not the centerpiece at all. I've heard from a geologist before that there's significant evidence that without any influence from man, we would likely be heading slowly towards the beginning of another ice age. The important part isn't just how hot it is now, but how how hot it is compared to 10 years, 20 years, 100+ years ago. We've only been using oil an industrial sense since the 1860s. Additionally, our population is exponentially higher than it was then also. Climate change prior to that we likely had a minimal effect on. Climate change is normal and happens all the time. Climate change happening as rapidly as it has been over the past 150 years is what's the problem.
 
"pollutant / carbon / whatever output is down xxxx% since 19xx"

I used to smoke 2 packs of cigs a day, now Im down to 1 pack a day. I feel so healthy and now I will never get cancer!
 
thejokker said:
It should also be noted that Global Warming as a nom de plume has fallen from favor substituting Climate Change instead.
Click to expand...
Source? My understanding of Greenland's name is that it was an early example of marketing, trying to attract settlers when the reality was it was ice everywhere. It's been a long standing historical irony. The same way we call Native Americans Indians. They're not actually from India.
 
Ugh, I quoted the wrong part, was referring to this:

thejokker said:
t should be noted that the Vikings named Greenland because of its lush vegetation and relatively mild climate during this warming period which bears little resemblance to the icy rock Greenland is today.
Click to expand...
 
thejokker said:
The centerpiece of the Global Warming debate revolves around the question as to whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today
Click to expand...
Just, no, it doesn't. Just because it was warmer (naturally) in Earths history (which is obvious) in no way means humans aren't causing it now. Has it ever dawned on you it could be both? Of course not, that would be reasonable.

The debate continues over whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today.
Click to expand...

The debate is on how much of an impact humans are having on the Earths natural cycle. It's about destabilization altogether, not just about it getting colder or hotter. It's about human activity possibly triggering extremes in the global climate, artificially.

It should be noted that the Vikings named Greenland because of its lush vegetation and relatively mild climate during this warming period which bears little resemblance to the icy rock Greenland is today.
Click to expand...

Even if this is true (I don't care if it is) why should this be noted? Everyone is aware of the natural cycles of the Earth. That's not even in question, man.

It should also be noted that Global Warming as a nom de plume has fallen from favor substituting Climate Change instead.
Click to expand...

There is a great reason why, too, as it's all about the destabilization of the Earths natural cycles. After all we don't want to trigger the Earth negatively for human life) in either direction. Balance.

This suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today supporting MIT's Atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen assertion that today’s weather patterns fall within normal weather fluctuations.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and this is the same guy that also claimed cigarettes had little to know impact on lung cancer. He also knows we have to monitor our impact on the global climate which you seemed to not know coming into this thread. This guy has been wrong more than a few times and the fact he has received money from people that benefit from no change being implemented doesn't help his case, and you're not helping yours, either. You called a few people here uneducated yet you lack the basic concepts of this entire debate. It's like you're making up the debate in your own mind...lol.

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability. Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change. Source
Click to expand...
 
tetris42 said:
Source? My understanding of Greenland's name is that it was an early example of marketing, trying to attract settlers when the reality was it was ice everywhere. It's been a long standing historical irony. The same way we call Native Americans Indians. They're not actually from India.
Click to expand...

There were short lived viable colonies in Greenland in that period that all failed at about the same time coinciding with the end of the warming period.
 
thejokker said:
The centerpiece of the Global Warming debate revolves around the question as to whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Mann, Bradley and Hughes published papers based upon tree ring and ice core samples which concluded modern temperatures are warmer. A controversy exists however over this study. Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific method whereas scientists are expected to publish their data and methodology so as to allow other scientists to verify their results. Mann refused to do this.

Canadian geologist Stephen McIntyre literally had to sue the publishers of Mann's paper in order to get the data and found Mann had cherry picked tree core samples. Roughly 150 samples were obtained but Mann based his research on 10 - 12 samples which supported his hypothesis and ignored the 90% samples which did not support his hypothesis. This is the same Mann who was exposed in the Climategate scandal as a very shady character.

The debate continues over whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today. It should be noted that the Vikings named Greenland because of its lush vegetation and relatively mild climate during this warming period which bears little resemblance to the icy rock Greenland is today. It should also be noted that Global Warming as a nom de plume has fallen from favor substituting Climate Change instead. This suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today supporting MIT's Atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen assertion that today’s weather patterns fall within normal weather fluctuations.
Click to expand...

Vikings have those awesome hats with horns on them. That makes them far more amazing than anyone alive today with the exception of people that wear a replica of one while playing Skyrim.

As for climate change, I blame the helmet.
 
Stiletto said:
Only thing worse than those who refuse to admit that they're wrong are those who try to deflect away from their wrongness.
Click to expand...

I wonder what tune you'll be singing if manmade climate change is proven as severe as has been suggested
 
JaiWebb said:
Just, no, it doesn't. Just because it was warmer (naturally) in Earths history (which is obvious) in no way means humans aren't causing it now. Has it ever dawned on you it could be both? Of course not, that would be reasonable.

The debate is on how much of an impact humans are having on the Earths natural cycle. It's about destabilization altogether, not just about it getting colder or hotter. It's about human activity possibly triggering extremes in the global climate, artificially.

Even if this is true (I don't care if it is) why should this be noted? Everyone is aware of the natural cycles of the Earth. That's not even in question, man.

There is a great reason why, too, as it's all about the destabilization of the Earths natural cycles. After all we don't want to trigger the Earth negatively for human life) in either direction. Balance.

Irrelevant and this is the same guy that also claimed cigarettes had little to know impact on lung cancer. He also knows we have to monitor our impact on the global climate which you seemed to not know coming into this thread. This guy has been wrong more than a few times and the fact he has received money from people that benefit from no change being implemented doesn't help his case, and you're not helping yours, either. You called a few people here uneducated yet you lack the basic concepts of this entire debate. It's like you're making up the debate in your own mind...lol.
Click to expand...
All evidence points towards natural causes to our weather patterns. Attempts to prove scientifically that our weather is unusually warm have failed. The poles are not receding; the population of polar bears has doubled over the last 30 years. What can you put on the table that proves conclusively that the ecology of the earth is in danger?

My Grandfather smoked cigars everyday and died at 95. Cigarettes have little impact on lung cancer in some individuals (fact) while having a major impact on others. Lindzen's view on this matter is, as you say, irrelevant. All scientist receiving funding from outside sources so your comment on that matter is also, as you say, irrelevant. All scientists make mistakes which is why they design experiments and publish the results. Harvard and MIT both regard Lindzen as an expert in the field which disproves the (absurd) notion that all scientists agree.

I've cited a specific study which was at one time the centerpiece of the global warming argument until peer review tore it apart. The science is not settled and there is not a consensus on the matter dispute bogus claims by political activists and their minions to the contrary.
 
The cute part about referencing a time in society where there was debate about the sphericity of the earth is that it draws a pretty congruent allegory to the debate about climate change. I'm sure those damned scientists were pushing their round earth theory to keep the rice meal gravy train flowing so they could continue to sell maps and globes and control the populace with unnecessarily expensive sailing equipment to navigate. If it's one thing science has taught us, it's to always be suspicious of an ulterior motive. All of our technological achievements are rife with corruption. If 90% of climatologists are proposing a theory then we must assume the opposite could be true.
 
thejokker said:
My Grandfather smoked cigars everyday and died at 95. Cigarettes have little impact on lung cancer in some individuals (fact) while having a major impact on others.
Click to expand...
I'm worried it's this kind of logic that is the crux of many anti-warmer beliefs. That because you can find a single solitary instance of something outside of the norm, the norm is therefore not the norm, and "anything is possible!". Just because you find an article here or there that claims to disprove global warming does not mean global warming has been disproven.

Do you feel there is a consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer?
 
thejokker said:
All evidence points towards natural causes to our weather patterns. Attempts to prove scientifically that our weather is unusually warm have failed. The poles are not receding; the population of polar bears has doubled over the last 30 years. What can you put on the table that proves conclusively that the ecology of the earth is in danger?
Click to expand...
You keep saying things that can be disproved, then you don't address the response in an intellectually honest way. I mean let's look at the list:

-You claim there is more pollution today than in the 1800s, but only focus on pictures and accounts of cities. We've stated pollution is more than just cities AND shown how places in China and India are just as awful as London and NYC used to be. Not counting that, there are far more people on earth now polluting so the total sum is much higher. I mention how deforestation is ocean pollution is far higher than it was in the 1800s. You ignore all of this and show us more pictures of polluted 1800s cities.

-You mention cow methane having a bigger impact than cars, while ignoring the fact that there are MORE cows now AND cars polluting in addition to that. Your own logic doesn't hold here.

-You mention how removing all CO2 from the atmosphere will cause life to cease to exist, as though this was somehow a risk we were facing, nor do we even have technology that could remotely accomplish this. This feels like a total distraction to the conversation.

-You claim Greenland was a lush jungle when it was named, but provide no evidence of this. It's common knowledge Greenland was full of ice when it was named, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

-You're pointing to a grandfather living to an old age as proof cigarettes don't kill everyone. So what? Cigarettes have more additives Maybe your grandfather would have lived to 105 if he didn't smoke. Intense radiation doesn't kill everyone at the same rate either, that doesn't mean it's not harmful as shit. This feels like misdirection again.

-You're claiming the Middle Age warming is the centerpiece of the global warming argument. We've flat out stated it's not. While it's an argument someone has no doubt made, the measurements of temperatures across the globe for the past 100 years are the CENTERPIECE of the argument.

Your posts have a clear trend of making unsubstantiated claims, then intentionally not addressing them honestly. Want us to take your seriously? Provide a source showing there is more forest now than in the 1800s. Provide a legitimate source stating that Greenland was full of lush greenery at the time it was named and not ice. Provide a source explaining why burning 950 billion barrels of oil does NOT impact the climate. If you can't do these things, you're just coming across as an advanced troll, there's no point in even replying to what you're saying if you're not willing to be intellectually honest about what you're saying.
 
McFry said:
I'm worried it's this kind of logic that is the crux of many anti-warmer beliefs. That because you can find a single solitary instance of something outside of the norm, the norm is therefore not the norm, and "anything is possible!". Just because you find an article here or there that claims to disprove global warming does not mean global warming has been disproven.

Do you feel there is a consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer?
Click to expand...
Cancers and Lung Cancer specifically seems to run in families. Cigarettes do not cause cancer otherwise everyone who smokes would get cancer. I think it is more accurate to say smoking cigarettes increases the odds of getting lung cancer in those persons with a predisposition to lung cancer. Knowing whether one has that predisposition is difficult to access and smoking is associated with other illnesses so in general it is wise not to smoke however you cannot say conclusively that smoking will harm a specific individual.
 
thejokker said:
All evidence points towards natural causes to our weather patterns. Attempts to prove scientifically that our weather is unusually warm have failed.
Click to expand...

This is false. No matter how loud, or how many times you repeat this statement it will never be true.
 
thejokker said:
Knowing whether one has that predisposition is difficult to access and smoking is associated with other illnesses so in general it is wise not to smoke however you cannot say conclusively that smoking will harm a specific individual.
Click to expand...

There are a number of genetic tests coming online to access predispositions to a number of diseases, breast cancer being notable with Angelina Jolie opting for a preventive double mastectomy.
 
tetris42 said:
You keep saying things that can be disproved, then you don't address the response in an intellectually honest way. I mean let's look at the list:

-You claim there is more pollution today than in the 1800s, but only focus on pictures and accounts of cities. We've stated pollution is more than just cities AND shown how places in China and India are just as awful as London and NYC used to be. Not counting that, there are far more people on earth now polluting so the total sum is much higher. I mention how deforestation is ocean pollution is far higher than it was in the 1800s. You ignore all of this and show us more pictures of polluted 1800s cities.

-You mention cow methane having a bigger impact than cars, while ignoring the fact that there are MORE cows now AND cars polluting in addition to that. Your own logic doesn't hold here.

-You mention how removing all CO2 from the atmosphere will cause life to cease to exist, as though this was somehow a risk we were facing, nor do we even have technology that could remotely accomplish this. This feels like a total distraction to the conversation.

-You claim Greenland was a lush jungle when it was named, but provide no evidence of this. It's common knowledge Greenland was full of ice when it was named, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

-You're pointing to a grandfather living to an old age as proof cigarettes don't kill everyone. So what? Cigarettes have more additives Maybe your grandfather would have lived to 105 if he didn't smoke. Intense radiation doesn't kill everyone at the same rate either, that doesn't mean it's not harmful as shit. This feels like misdirection again.

-You're claiming the Middle Age warming is the centerpiece of the global warming argument. We've flat out stated it's not. While it's an argument someone has no doubt made, the measurements of temperatures across the globe for the past 100 years are the CENTERPIECE of the argument.

Your posts have a clear trend of making unsubstantiated claims, then intentionally not addressing them honestly. Want us to take your seriously? Provide a source showing there is more forest now than in the 1800s. Provide a legitimate source stating that Greenland was full of lush greenery at the time it was named and not ice. Provide a source explaining why burning 950 billion barrels of oil does NOT impact the climate. If you can't do these things, you're just coming across as an advanced troll, there's no point in even replying to what you're saying if you're not willing to be intellectually honest about what you're saying.
Click to expand...
You are saying I can be disproved; have at it.

Disprove that 19th century industrial cities were not vile, polluted, ceasepools matching any modern third-world emerging country. It should be easy; right?

Read about the Viking settlements in Greenland. Why would the vikings name if greenland? (Hint: Medieval Warm Period)

If Mann, Bradley, Hughes is was not the centerpiece of the global warming argument than what was? Temperatures over the last 100 years fall within the normal range of temperatures over the last 1000 years (i.e. your sample is too small).

CO2 is not a pollutant.

"1934 - hottest year on record
Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McIntyre notified NASA which acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. As a result, "The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech)."

If you read every one of my posts you will note I have stated that neither side of this argument has proven their point. The matter is unsettled. To state that climate change is proven to be man-made is false. To state that all scientists agree on climate change is false.

Anyone wishing to do extensive research on what I have pointed out will discover that by and large I am correct. The argument for man-made climate change is weak...
 
Hey look! 26 pages in and still going! I wonder what the record for a flamewar on this forum is.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Hey look! 26 pages in and still going! I wonder what the record for a flamewar on this forum is.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they've gone on longer than this. But really, if you don't wanna read about it, I have a perfectly good sammich you can get into once you're done with the self immolation thing-y and are nice and crispy.
 
thejokker said:
Cancers and Lung Cancer specifically seems to run in families. Cigarettes do not cause cancer otherwise everyone who smokes would get cancer. I think it is more accurate to say smoking cigarettes increases the odds of getting lung cancer in those persons with a predisposition to lung cancer. Knowing whether one has that predisposition is difficult to access and smoking is associated with other illnesses so in general it is wise not to smoke however you cannot say conclusively that smoking will harm a specific individual.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Both my parents smoked all their lives and did not get cancer.
Also, if smoking caused cancer we would see the lung cancer rates decreasing in accordance with the decrease in people who smoke. Instead LC rates are the same or increasing while the smoking rates have dramatically decreased over the last 20 or so years.
 
You are correct thejoker,

Cigarettes do not cause cancer. The smoke however inhaled does promote abnormal cell growth, which by definition is cancer.
 
thejokker said:
Disprove that 19th century industrial cities were not vile, polluted, ceasepools matching any modern third-world emerging country. It should be easy; right?
Click to expand...

tetris42 said:
You claim there is more pollution today than in the 1800s, but only focus on pictures and accounts of cities. We've stated pollution is more than just cities AND shown how places in China and India are just as awful as London and NYC used to be. Not counting that, there are far more people on earth now polluting so the total sum is much higher. I mention how deforestation is ocean pollution is far higher than it was in the 1800s. You ignore all of this and show us more pictures of polluted 1800s cities.
Click to expand...

Yeah...

See this what I mean by intellectually dishonest. I'm saying you're deliberately ignoring the point and instead of addressing that, you're challenging me to disprove a different point I'm not disputing in the first place. That's like me saying you can't drink nothing but ocean water or else you'll die and you telling me that I can't disprove that salt isn't a vital nutrient.
 
^ orly?

The entire warmer movement is based on fabricated studies and peddled by politicians and idiots. The fact is, there isn't a consensus that man made climate change poses any immediate danger. Is it any wonder that the world's leading economies (china, Germany) skipped on obama's UN climate change summit?

most people do not give a rat's behind about this absurd climate change religion that you guys keep trying to shove down our throats.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
Absolutely correct.

Both my parents smoked all their lives and did not get cancer.
Also, if smoking caused cancer we would see the lung cancer rates decreasing in accordance with the decrease in people who smoke. Instead LC rates are the same or increasing while the smoking rates have dramatically decreased over the last 20 or so years.
Click to expand...

Yeah but...smoking bad...so...if you're saying smoking not bad...then YOU BAD! :mad::mad::mad:
 
thejokker (goddamn do I love that name...so full of fail) is the new sculelos!
 
fixedmy7970 said:
^ orly?

The entire warmer movement is based on fabricated studies and peddled by politicians and idiots. The fact is, there isn't a consensus that man made climate change poses any immediate danger. Is it any wonder that the world's leading economies (china, Germany) skipped on obama's UN climate change summit?

most people do not give a rat's behind about this absurd climate change religion that you guys keep trying to shove down our throats.
Click to expand...

You will excuse me if I chose to believe those "idiots" over at NASA over an anonymous name caller on the [H]ard forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top