Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Krenum said:
Oh, I guess he read "saved" as having some sort of religious implications. I was referring to taking care of one another.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with. By taking care of one another, that includes taking care of the planet.
 
JaiWebb said:
I live next to a polluted lake. So, yes, we do influence our planet. The question is by how much. The life in that lake was negatively affected by humans dumping waste into it for decades. And yes we humans can make bigger problems in our world then that example given.

Look at what overfishing is doing to fish populations in the oceans.
Click to expand...

And why would we be worried about fish populations in our oceans?

Seems to me we are worried about fish populations not because it could kill fish, but because we like to eat them.
 
Krenum said:
And why would we be worried about fish populations in our oceans?

Seems to me we are worried about fish populations not because it could kill fish, but because we like to eat them.
Click to expand...

I think food production for humans is a pretty vital thing to consider.
 
Krenum said:
The planet. Earth. The one we live on. Does my opinion fascinate you so that you have to keep making assumptions? I'm done stating my opinion. If you need more confirmation just read my previous posts.
Click to expand...

I have to keep making assumptions because your opinion is either so vague that it's meaningless, or it's ridiculous.

And it appears to be the latter. The "It's completely impossible for us to hurt the planet" attitude is amazingly ignorant, extremely harmful and, quite frankly, disgusting. It's that precise attitude that has caused the permanent extinction of species entirely due to our own narcissism, stupidity, and ignorance.
 
Eliminate all scientist who's field of study is not climatology and the "consensus" disappears. The idea that all scientists agree should be a red flag (!?!). The original study upon which the "Hockey Stick Controversy" is based was published without methodology and data (making peer review impossible) and literally took a lawsuit to produce that information. What did the Climate Change activists want to hide?

The studies upon which Global Warming is based and the resulting predictions from their models have failed to predict the actual weather patterns over the last decade. i.e. they were wrong...

Warmer weather patterns typically result in longer growing seasons and increased food production. Warmer weather and increased food production results in larger animals and populations. i.e. dinosaurs.

In fact is the science is not settled. Neither side has proved their point. Too many so called scientists on both sides are actually political activists with an agenda and should be disregarded. A truly objective and rational student of this issue should be undecided at this point.
 
Krenum said:
And why would we be worried about fish populations in our oceans?

Seems to me we are worried about fish populations not because it could kill fish, but because we like to eat them.
Click to expand...

We're worried about fish populations because protein is going to become a valuable commodity at the rate we're going. Eating fish is preferable to eating insects in the western world, and the death of fish populations can be directly attributed to rising ocean temperatures.

There's an idea for an ad: "Which would you rather eat, fish...or crickets? If you answered the latter, keep listening to the American Petroleum Institute."
 
Destruya said:
And before you mention meat, Krenum, please keep in mind that it takes something like five barrels of oil to raise a single steer from birth to maturity to slaughterhouse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/b...27iht-meat.1.9525251.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

This is what really bothers me the most about this issue. So many people are obsessed about the politics of this issue and the bottom line is that long term sustainability of way of life is far less certain than many of the issues surrounding climate change. Burning more and more fossil fuels to raise more and more animals for meat, building more and more roads, clearing more and more areas for construction. How for how long is all of this sustainable? If politics and pseudo-science prevent us from seriously addressing this question, we're in for a rough time. Maybe well beyond our lifetimes but the day will come when it's going to be a problem.
 
Krenum said:
Something new will always be there to take its place.
Click to expand...

Why even bother making that argument? The earth is going to end up destroyed by the sun anyway, so who cares what we do? Plus there's trillions of other planets in the universe, so we can do whatever the hell we want to this one, right?

Seeing a species that was entirely unique in the universe completely eradicated because we're jerks is no big deal, because something new will always be there to take its place.

I'm trying to think of a more disgusting philosophy to espouse, but I'm having trouble coming up with one.
 
wabbitseason said:
Evolution is carried out routinely in labs across the nation. Bacterial populations are evolved to meet specifications. It works just as well on a larger scale.

Evolution is not a theory. The theory part is that mammalian evolution produced humans, which seems exceedingly likely at this point.
Click to expand...

Micro evolution can be considered fact (proven theory) because it can be observed in the lab or even in nature (cross breeding different types of dog for example)

Macro evolution is just theory, as it is speculation and cannot proven by observation. You can't take a couple birds and somehow get a mammal.
 
nutzo said:
Micro evolution can be considered fact (proven theory) because it can be observed in the lab or even in nature (cross breeding different types of dog for example)

Macro evolution is just theory, as it is speculation and cannot proven by observation. You can't take a couple birds and somehow get a mammal.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as micro and macro evolution, just evolution. "Macro" evolution is just evolution, which we can witness and is supported by craploads of fossil evidence, over a long period of time.
 
Ducman69 said:
There's no such thing as micro and macro evolution, just evolution. "Macro" evolution is just evolution, which we can witness and is supported by craploads of fossil evidence, over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

more to the point, it's supported by multiple sequenced genomes.
 
Climate change is real regardless of what the nay sayers say.

Climate change isn't as bad as some would have you believe

It's that simple, really.
 
nutzo said:
Macro evolution is just theory, as it is speculation and cannot proven by observation
Click to expand...

Nope. Evolution is an observed fact. The fossil record is pretty clear.

Natural selection as the mechanism for evoution is a theory
 
heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...

The key your statement is cheaper.

The problem will virtually all these green "solutions" is that they are much more expensive, and the added costs are making people poorer.
When the cost of electricity is so high that old people end up dying in their overheated homes because they can't afford to run their air conditioner, then we have a problem.
 
nutzo said:
Micro evolution can be considered fact (proven theory) because it can be observed in the lab or even in nature (cross breeding different types of dog for example)

Macro evolution is just theory, as it is speculation and cannot proven by observation. You can't take a couple birds and somehow get a mammal.
Click to expand...

Aren't you talking about the same process, micro vs macro? Large evolutionary changes are the accumulation of smaller ones occurring over a larger time frame.
 
m heisty said:
Holy shit I just seized upon a gem of an idea.

"Climate change, is it real or are we all just a bunch of narcissistic douchebags that have to claim responsibility for absolutely anything that happens?"
Click to expand...

This is another one of those "scary thoughts" I see propagated by anti-science. This idea that because I believe humans can destroy the earth, that I am somehow narcissistic in my species power, and am so full of myself as a human to think that little ole me could wreck a planet. It's just such a bizarre slant on the idea that man possesses the technology to destroy the earth. There is nothing gloat worthy or narcissistic about this. I do not take pride in the fact that I can ruin the planet any more than I would take pride in my ability to burn my house down. I am humbled by my planet, I feel little and puny in its comparison. Earth will definitely win long before we destroy it, because in doing so we are just destroying ourselves. Unless we build a bomb so powerful we literally explode the planet into tiny fragments, earth wins every time. I just dont consider roaches becoming the dominant species as an example of the earth winning.
 
Destruya said:
We're worried about fish populations because protein is going to become a valuable commodity at the rate we're going. Eating fish is preferable to eating insects in the western world, and the death of fish populations can be directly attributed to rising ocean temperatures.

There's an idea for an ad: "Which would you rather eat, fish...or crickets? If you answered the latter, keep listening to the American Petroleum Institute."
Click to expand...

Actually lower fish population are mainly due to over-fishing and the increase in whale populations since we no longer them.
 
nutzo said:
The key your statement is cheaper.

The problem will virtually all these green "solutions" is that they are much more expensive, and the added costs are making people poorer.
When the cost of electricity is so high that old people end up dying in their overheated homes because they can't afford to run their air conditioner, then we have a problem.
Click to expand...

Certainly cost is a key criteria. Do we just continue to burn fossil fuels until something else becomes cheaper? What if nothing does become cheaper before there are depletion issues? And if one is into the whole economic conspiracy issue behind climate science then it's just as plausible the hydrocarbon industry has little interest in potential cheap sources of energy that it can't control.

If burning oil and has and coal is all we have for now ok. But it's certain that one day we won't have anymore. We better have a some idea about when that's going to happen.
 
nutzo said:
Actually lower fish population are mainly due to over-fishing and the increase in whale populations since we no longer them.
Click to expand...

And the 'over-fishing' part is directly because unlike the western world, raising livestock for wholesale slaughter like we're still able to do in the western world has become unsustainable.
 
OEM said:
Climate change is real regardless of what the nay sayers say.

Climate change isn't as bad as some would have you believe

It's that simple, really.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I believe. I'm tired of these expert reports that predict dire consequences, and yet when you actually read their report you find that they have used worst case scenarios from their models to drive a conclusion.

Perhaps they believe that people won't take action unless they're frightened into it by worst case predictions. The unintended effect is to make skeptics believe that it's all a crock and completely untrue
 
McFry said:
This is another one of those "scary thoughts" I see propagated by anti-science. This idea that because I believe humans can destroy the earth, that I am somehow narcissistic in my species power, and am so full of myself as a human to think that little ole me could wreck a planet. It's just such a bizarre slant on the idea that man possesses the technology to destroy the earth.
Click to expand...
Honestly, if the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone to shit, we wouldn't be hear typing this right now.
 
nutzo said:
increase in whale populations since we no longer them.
Click to expand...

We had to stop because people got greedy and couldn't regulate themselves.

Self regulation is the key, but people refuse to regulate themselves and cause problems like we have now.
 
All of you who believe in climate change like it is cut into stone. What do you say about this. In the 1970's the world was told that if we didn't change our ways in just a few short years we would reach a point of no return and the world would get colder at a faster and faster pace. That didn't happen. In the early 90's we were told that if we didn't change our ways we would reach the point of no return by the early 00's and the world would get warmer and warmer at a faster and faster pace. In the early 2000's we were warned that if we don't change our ways we would soon reach a point of no return and the world would get warmer and warmer at a faster and faster rate. Then in the late 2000's we were warned that if we don't change our way we would reach a point of no return and the world would get warmer and warmer at a faster and faster rate. Then in the early part of the current decade we were warned that if we don't change our way we will soon reach a point of no return. The point is we have heard the dooms day predictions for decades and as far as I can tell the world isn't burning up and life isn't dying off at an uncontrollable rate. People might be more receptive to the idea of climate change if those whom believe in "the science" didn't sit on their high horse of false morality and look down their nose at everyone and make end of the world predictions every few years that never come true. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top