Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
spintroniX said:
you fail.

anti vaxxers and anti gmo tards are overwhelmingly liberal democrats.
Click to expand...

The latest data comes from a survey of 2,316 U.S. adults by a researcher who works at the universities of Yale and Harvard. While questions about human-caused climate change divided along political lines--with liberals believing it is happening and conservatives denying it--there was no such correlation with anti-vaccine views. The vast majority of people believe the benefits of childhood vaccinations outweigh the risks, regardless of their politics. And the survey found anti-vaccine views are more common among Republicans. source
Click to expand...

Name calling makes your points more correct though.
 
dgz said:
You do realize you're citing a black guy when dealing with Stiletto, right?
Click to expand...

Right, allegations of racism when someone refutes your "white privilege, SJW" campaign.

NDG is awesome. Who the hell cares if he's black. Not me, not Stiletto, and not the vast majority of reasonable folk fed up with you and your politically-correct professional victimhood.
 
spintroniX said:
you fail.

anti vaxxers and anti gmo tards are overwhelmingly liberal democrats.
Click to expand...

Tons of anti-vaxxers are in right wing fundamentalist churches that reject all medicine. As far a GMOs, when it comes to using them for food, I don't think there's really a clear political divide on that issue that I've seen. I don't see food companies marketing food due to its GMO content for instance.
 
spintroniX said:
DOES IT MAKE IT MORE CORRECTER IF I USE ALL CAPS!?!??

Ok, I will concede that the anti vax views are independent of political views.
Click to expand...

I'M GLAD YOU'RE MAN ENOUGH TO CHANGE WHEN PRESENTED WITH A REASON TO DO SO. THANK YOU, IT'S APPRECIATED.
 
m heisty said:
Denying, and wanting proof that isn't doctored and manipulated are two different things. On the other hand, why is it that nutcase atheists Democrats (yes I know that's redundant) believe anything they are told with out asking any questions.
Click to expand...

We do ask questions, but overall our faith in science stems from the fact that our sources are credible, and yours are not. I do not necessarily know all the inner workings of the internal combustion engine that makes my car move forward. However I do know that many credible people worked on it and have told me it will, so I am inclined to believe them when they say that pushing the gas pedal will result in forward motion.

I dont know where the anti-science crowd is sourcing their information. A lot of it is just bobble head talking points repeated from other sources without anyone ever actually knowing the origin of the first claim. Some if it comes from scientists with sketchy backgrounds in support of the energy industries which leads to bias, which is ironic since it's this kind of monetary bias that anti-science folks use to demonize pro-science people in the first place.

I mean cmon, whats the #1 reason any anti-science denier always uses against climate change funding? Money. "Follow the money trail" as they say it. They accuse the majority of the scientific body of the world as all being part of some elaborate financial conspiracy to keep grant money flowing so they all retain their jobs. As if these thousands of people are all just unconscionable freeloading bastards selling their souls to the devil for a quick buck. A buck that still requires 80 hour work weeks for 30 years of their lives and maybe a 6 figure salary if they're lucky.

And yet they dont bother following their own money trail. You have the most profitable industry on earth making claims that what they do is harmless, and yet anti-science folks wont stop for a second and even consider that maybe they are the one's being manipulated to preserve the obscene profits of the ultra wealthy. It really boggles my mind how the oil/gas industry gets a free pass on obstructed science for financial gain whilst the educational body of the world is lambasted as nothing more than moochers.
 
Draax said:
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Click to expand...

Gee...cite a bullshit claim, get called on it, respond with an NdT quote. Ja get that one off Pinterest?
 
Draax said:
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Click to expand...

"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent."
-Ross McKitrick
 
Stiletto said:
Deniers, liars, people who should be locked up. They're not even human. Let's just call them "inferior" and ship them off to the camps.
Click to expand...

That's a little excessive.

It'd probably be better if we just put them on some kind of a watch list. They are probably affiliated with dangerous militia/survivalist organizations or money schemes.

Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena that will continue. Global warming is the scientifically accepted idea that carbon emissions, deforestation, etc. are contributing to a rise in global temperatures. The research is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is not really much reason to deny this. There is a significant amount of research that supports the theory and no viable alternative explanation has been given. We can work from this point until or if it's disproven just like we do many others in physics. It's as simple as that.
 
McFry said:
And yet they dont bother following their own money trail. You have the most profitable industry on earth making claims that what they do is harmless, and yet anti-science folks wont stop for a second and even consider that maybe they are the one's being manipulated to preserve the obscene profits of the ultra wealthy.
Click to expand...

It is beyond silly to point fingers at climate change folks and talk about there corruption and greed and somehow forget the extremely vested interests of the hydrocarbon industry. And industry that has no problem with spilling oil with almost literally nothing better than paper towels to clean it up and having oil rigs blow up like bombs and then turn the other way and talk about how rules and regulations kill jobs and economic development.
 
A sentiment that others have echoed here is that, if we manage to reduce pollution and invent better technologies, what possible harm could that do? It's a sentiment I generally share.

The big problem is that those that stand to gain the most from this, i.e. the ruling political elite who crave power over all else, are the ones pushing the "solutions" while being the primary creators of the problem to begin with.

The FACT is that pollution is waste, and waste is lost profit. There are enormous profits to be made in more efficient technology as well as strategies for coping with and mitigating the effects of climate change. The only thing governments need to do is get out of the freaking way, and stop scheming for ways to steal more money and power from the individuals.

It is the conniving of politicians that drive those on the right to be skeptical (unrightly so) of the science. The science is more or less settled on this issue (though projections and models vary, the gist of the AGW argument is solid). The right leaning amongst us would be better off championing free market solutions to the impending problems, rather than trying to deny their existence altogether.
 
One of the better telltale signs when determining who to trust if you dont understand a certain topic is their argumentative style. Anti-science folks dont actually use a lot of science to discredit their adversaries. Instead they use unprovable claims such as the conspiracy angle, or more commonly they simply make stuff up. For instance; anti-science people will try to cast doubt on the consensus among scientists overall. They'll say things like "there is no consensus at all, the entire subject is up for debate, it's completely split 50/50 down the middle" etc. They try to cast doubt by suggesting there is disagreement, without being specific about what that disagreement is. The biggest lie of which is suggesting that the majority of scientists are NOT in consensus on the subject. This is simply not true, they ARE. But much like a political attack, repetition is often key. If you just keep repeating the mantra "there is no consensus, there is no consensus" people will tend to believe. Afterall, it worked on them didnt it?
 
Stiletto said:
"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent."
-Ross McKitrick
Click to expand...

I google searched this guy and he is an extremely poor economist. He's all over the place - missing confidence intervals, incorrect starting data, etc. Almost everything he writes gets pretty cleanly and fairly debunked.

Not really a good reference.

degrasse-Tyson isn't really either, he's speaking from accepting other authority.
 
FWIW, this isn't "Google" saying it. This is Eric Schmidt saying it.

Though I understand that slapping "Google says" in the headline makes it sound more exciting and click-baity.
 
m heisty said:
Denying, and wanting proof that isn't doctored and manipulated are two different things. On the other hand, why is it that nutcase atheists Democrats (yes I know that's redundant) believe anything they are told with out asking any questions.

If you want to be involved in the debate quit being a douchebag and stick to the topic at hand. Throwing in ad homien attacks makes your point sound really week.
Click to expand...

Lets play this game. I attacked Republicans as a class, so its not an ad hominem.

And the whole process of science is asking questions, which I'm pretty sure you know if you aren't trolling.

On the other hand, the entire basis of religion is blind faith, i.e. not to question anything.
 
As one who was around in the 70's and remembers the environmental groups shrilling about the dangers of nuclear power, which resulted in the US canceling many nuclear power plants including one that was ready to turn on(Shoreham) and instead building many of the coal fired plants the same environmental groups are shrilling about today, I am somewhat reluctant to try another several trillion dollar experiment based on the wants of these groups. The two technologies the enviro groups accept today, solar and wind, each have their own issues, not least of which is neither is suitable for base line generation. Plus windmills kill far more protected birds then most of the enviro groups want to admit, not to mention the hundreds of miles of power lines needed to bring the intermittent wind power to customers. And what happens to the millions of tons of solar panels when they expire in 20 to 30 years? Do we know how to recycle them?

Plus the climate model themselves are not exactly consistent in their results. Even the same model gives different results if ran on different computers. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/...s-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/

I also think there is a really good chance that the large fusion reactor in the sky has far more to do with climate change then the two legged critters that are overly impressed with their so called understanding of how things work.
 
nutzo said:
Global warming (I mean climate change) is a religion, and all deniers must be punished.

We are now going on 15 years without any measurable increase in temperatures, even though CO2 levels have increased at a slightly faster rate than the climate models. These models are inconsistent with the actual data, and in any other scientific arena they would have been dismissed as failures.

Yet, in spite of the data, the believers still insist the models (CO2=warming) are correct, and we are destroying our children’s future.

The real problem is that their “solutions” to global warming are more destructive to the middle class and our children’s future than any actual climate change would ever be.
Click to expand...

This is completely incorrect, your first line, is actually completely incorrect.
Have you actually done any personal study, or are you just saying things because it feels good? or someone believably conveyed such nonsense to you at some point.?

This forum has changed severely.
 
Stiletto said:
"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent."
-Ross McKitrick
Click to expand...

McKitrick tries and fails to move the goalposts
on climate action

In a June 16 Financial Post op-ed (“The Global Warming Hiatus?”), Ross McKitrick continues to try to move the goalposts for climate action, while harping on the tired old “warming pause” meme. It’s been thoroughly established that short-term variation is not significant in the context of more than a century of warming. It’s also been clearly shown that it makes no sense to view warming solely in terms of surface temperatures, when heat is being stored in the ocean. McKitrick attempts to promote the “pause” while dodging these troublesome facts by asserting that validating climate model predictions is what’s really important. In line with the new mantra of the delayers, he suggests we should just wait and see what happens.

In fact, global climate models work well for the purpose they were designed for: evaluating temperatures over long timescales. We already have all the information we need to know that action now is the cheapest and most effective way to avert dangerous climate change.

Climate models are designed to work over the long term. And over the long term, scientists stand by the models’ projections. Short-term variations can be introduced because the models cannot predict the timing of significant climate factors like El Niño events or volcanic eruptions, although they can correctly model those events if the timing is established. The latest IPCC report concluded that short-term discrepancies did not invalidate models’ usefulness for establishing ranges of future impacts. Others have even found that observed temperature increases may be underreported, greatly reducing the significance of any recent discrepancy.

Climate models project a range of possible temperatures, not one precise temperature. The recent variations in global average temperature remain within the expected range of possible conditions. But a reader wouldn’t know this from viewing the misleading graph accompanying McKitrick’s op-ed. Instead of a range, his graph presents the average path from an ensemble of model results, misleadingly giving the impression that model results can be used to simulate and project year-by-year variations. McKitrick even claims “the black line can be described as the mainstream thinking of contemporary climate science,” a preposterous statement given that official IPCC graphics often present the projected shift in the range that is expected without even including a central trend line.

We have plenty of information now, enough to know we should take action. McKitrick states that there is a “high probability” of information emerging in the next few years that strongly affects long-term climate projections. He doesn’t state what his confident prediction is based on, and it’s difficult to imagine what it might be. Climate science is improving incrementally, but the basics have been established for a hundred years and aren’t likely to suddenly change. Emissions are causing warming. Too much warming and we’re in trouble. Any real game-changing discoveries are much more likely to alter projections for the worse, a fact that the IPCC has acknowledged.

Action is cheap and practical. The IPCC has identified many “low hanging fruits” of climate mitigation, especially through energy efficiency and the rapidly plummeting price of renewable energy technologies. Much of the needed investment could come simply from shifting resources over from fossil fuels, rather than committing additional resources.

Inaction is costly. McKitrick flat-out states that “there is no downside to awaiting this information” while waiting for “crucial facts” could prevent countries from making unspecified “costly mistakes.” This is just wrong: the IPCC, the U.S. National Climate Assessment, and many other exhaustive reports have confirmed that waiting only increases the cost of eventual mitigation, as well as committing us to costly climate impacts. The potential costs of modernizing our energy system (which we would need to do anyway and which carries many co-benefits) pale in comparison to the costs we would face in an unchecked warming scenario.

McKitrick is attempting to appear prudent with his “wait and see” mantra, but his approach fails the test of both science and common sense. His background also doesn’t lend him credibility – he has been openly adversarial to climate science for decades, and is associated with anti-science groups including the now-discredited Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Marshall Institute. These groups have opposed scientific research on all fronts, including disputing the connection between cigarettes and cancer. He’s far from a neutral observer and his arguments just don’t hold up. SOURCE.
Click to expand...

This guys sounds like a real winner and someone that should be trusted.
 
InternationalHat said:
I google searched this guy and he is an extremely poor economist. He's all over the place - missing confidence intervals, incorrect starting data, etc. Almost everything he writes gets pretty cleanly and fairly debunked.

Not really a good reference.

degrasse-Tyson isn't really either, he's speaking from accepting other authority.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't know how to play the meaningless quote game. I'd recommend something from Bill Nye at this point. That'll get the frisson going.
 
Dead Parrot said:
As one who was around in the 70's and remembers the environmental groups shrilling about the dangers of nuclear power, which resulted in the US canceling many nuclear power plants including one that was ready to turn on(Shoreham) and instead building many of the coal fired plants the same environmental groups are shrilling about today, I am somewhat reluctant to try another several trillion dollar experiment based on the wants of these groups.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting a little thing called Three Mile Island.
 
InternationalHat said:
I CreepyUncleGoogled you with the watch list because you guys are pretty predictable and don't understand satire.
Click to expand...

Evidently you didn't, either. Nor did you bother to note the previously linked articles of men who valiantly defend your "satirical" position with gusto.
 
Krenum said:
We humans would like to think that were the ones causing it. It gives us jobs and conversation. But truth be told, its the just natural progression of the planet.
Click to expand...

So a natural progression can't be altered? News to me.

I'm always reminded of that George Carlin bit on "Saving the Planet". I think he explains it best,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c :)
Click to expand...

Love the guy, still, he says the Earth will be fine, we humans won't. Don't you want humans to thrive?
 
Krenum said:
We humans would like to think that were the ones causing it. It gives us jobs and conversation. But truth be told, its the just natural progression of the planet.

I'm always reminded of that George Carlin bit on "Saving the Planet". I think he explains it best,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c :)
Click to expand...

Is that your go to guy for scientific data? George Carlin? I ask simply because you state a conclusion so matter of factly without anything whatsoever to support your claim.
 
InternationalHat said:
I google searched this guy and he is an extremely poor economist. He's all over the place - missing confidence intervals, incorrect starting data, etc. Almost everything he writes gets pretty cleanly and fairly debunked.

Not really a good reference.

degrasse-Tyson isn't really either, he's speaking from accepting other authority.
Click to expand...

This is what I like to call the snopes effect. I've seen other use it here before. Basically they cite something knowing that you probably wont actually investigate the source, and in doing so they have artificially created credibility on the subject. A lot of people know ho NdT is, but I doubt many people know who McKitrick is. So when presented in the form of a refuting statement, especially if linked to a website, it adds a certain air of authenticity to the claim. After awhile you learn who not to waste your time debating with.
 
JaiWebb said:
So a natural progression can't be altered? News to me.



Love the guy, still, he says the Earth will be fine, we humans won't. Don't you want humans to thrive?
Click to expand...

Natural progression has worked out fine for the planet for billions of years. Why should we try to change it? Even if we could, what would give us the right to change it? We don't own this planet, were just renting.

Frankie said:
Is that your go to guy for scientific data? George Carlin? I ask simply because you state a conclusion so matter of factly without anything whatsoever to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Plenty to support my claim. Watch the video and enlighten yourself. Stop worrying about things you have absolutely no control over. Do that, and you'll be a better person for it.

Besides, Scientific data is irrelevant. Its only a measuring tool humans invented to discover facts so that we could share amongst ourselves and sound smart.
 
McFry said:
And yet they dont bother following their own money trail. You have the most profitable industry on earth making claims that what they do is harmless, and yet anti-science folks wont stop for a second and even consider that maybe they are the one's being manipulated to preserve the obscene profits of the ultra wealthy. It really boggles my mind how the oil/gas industry gets a free pass on obstructed science for financial gain whilst the educational body of the world is lambasted as nothing more than moochers.
Click to expand...
This extends to more than just climate change, I've always been amazed at people who willingly ignore when there are ENORMOUS money interests behind one side of a debate. It's the exact same principle as tobacco company science. It doesn't necessarily preclude debate, just that one side should be far more deserving of scrutiny than the other.

Also, here's my favorite comic on global warming:

global-warming-hoax-better-world-for-nothing.jpg
 
Dead Parrot said:
As one who was around in the 70's and remembers the environmental groups shrilling about the dangers of nuclear power, which resulted in the US canceling many nuclear power plants including one that was ready to turn on(Shoreham) and instead building many of the coal fired plants the same environmental groups are shrilling about today, I am somewhat reluctant to try another several trillion dollar experiment based on the wants of these groups. The two technologies the enviro groups accept today, solar and wind, each have their own issues, not least of which is neither is suitable for base line generation.
Click to expand...

1970's and pre-70's nuclear power was not great though. The reactors were expensive to maintain and generated a lot of waste.

Even if their arguments were off, 70's era nuclear power was not really a good fit for the US (or Japan) especially compared to like Russia. In Russia, they can put their reactors in geologically stable, sparsely populated areas and they've accepted the risk of transporting waste. Transporting and storing waste in the US is still a big deal. Natural gas burns cleanly and cheaply and we're sitting on a lot of it.

According to a family member there is new and strong interest in cleaner and safer nuclear technology including fusion. That is a good thing. We should do what is cost effective, safe, and does not have long term consequences like old-style nuclear reactors do.
 
spintroniX said:
The big problem is that those that stand to gain the most from this, i.e. the ruling political elite who crave power over all else, are the ones pushing the "solutions" while being the primary creators of the problem to begin with.
Click to expand...

Virtually person on Earth and those yet to be born would benefit from cheaper, cleaner and renewable sources of large amounts of energy free from geopolitical concerns. I have no idea where this notion of some power grab has become a talking point. Certainly sending thousands of young people to go fight in the Middle East to protect oil production is coming from the ruling political class. And when gas prices go up, it's more than the elites that don't have a problem with sending people to fight for low gas prices.
 
Krenum said:
Stop worrying about things you have absolutely no control over.
Click to expand...

So you operate under the "Trash the planet completely, who cares, cause 2 billion years from now it won't have made a difference" philosophy? You don't see anything wrong with that?
 
I'd also like to touch base on the financial bias to develop:

If we evolved in a world without water, and Gatorade was the first to manufacture a beverage, then Gatorade is what we would drink for sustenance. We would use it to wash our clothes, to water our plants, to feed our babies, to eat our cheerios. It's our only option right? And well, it would work, somewhat. Things would be pretty shitty but at least we wouldnt die. Gatorade would make a lot of money providing an essential service, and thats great.

But then comes along Ozarka, with this newfangled invetion called WATER. They claim it will benefit mankind, be cheaper to manufacture, and help sustain the earth. Pretty big claims, especially considering the tremenous financial incentive they have to market this product. I mean just imagine, something replacing our beloved Gatorade fountains. They'd put Gatorade out of business, and reap 100% of the market! There must be some ulterior motive here. We need to dig deeper and see how this industry is really just spreading false information in an attempt to profit.

And surely Ozarka will profit, but is this a bad thing? Does this put them in the same playing field as Gatorade? Are they both equal profiteers who's only real interest in self-serving? There is no double standard in suggesting that it is ok for one industry to profit from their business and not for another. Just because Elon Musk might stand to make trillions of dollars with EV technology does not make him equally as untrustworthy as Exxon and GM.
 
Krenum said:
Natural progression has worked out fine for the planet for billions of years. Why should we try to change it? Even if we could, what would give us the right to change it? We don't own this planet, were just renting.



Plenty to support my claim. Watch the video and enlighten yourself. Stop worrying about things you have absolutely no control over. Do that, and you'll be a better person for it.

Besides, Scientific data is irrelevant. Its only a measuring tool humans invented to discover facts so that we could share amongst ourselves and sound smart.
Click to expand...

Scientific data is irrelevant? Really? Did you just say that to sound smart? You want to stay ignorant, fine. Not everybody gets to save the planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top