![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
Are climate scientists the idiots or the politicians? Just wondering.
NASA and majority of climate scientists disagree with some random fucks fabrication on the internet.
It couldn't possibly be because they don't care what the UN/US, has to say about it, no, that'd be a reasonable assumption to make. Funniest part is you mention China as if they don't believe it in yet look at their air quality in certain cities. I"m pretty fucking sure they care and understand the science behind it, some!
Most people are straight up ignorant to anything other than their personal daily lives.
LOL you consider that name calling? Using the term climate change deniers? What term would you like me to use?
[dictionary]
I think 'denialist' is appropriate, since it's the correct word.
[/dictionary]
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Low levels of many things are extraordinarily unsafe. If all of the CO2 in the atmosphere at current levels were turned into CO, everything that breaths air would feel it in an hour. While not instantly lethal at those levels the health issues would be catastrophic from long term exposure.
I love this argument. If you don't 100% agree with the alarmist or ask more questions you are an idiot.
ZMOG CLIMATE GLOBAL COOLING WARMING WE MUST SURRENDER MORE MONEYZ AND POWER TO THE GUBMENT.
Excuse me while I tell Al Gore get get fucked telling me to reduce my carbon footprint while he is flying his lear jet between mansions.
That and excuse me for not wanting to wreck our economy because India and China aren't going to change shit.
ZMOG CLIMATE GLOBAL COOLING WARMING WE MUST SURRENDER MORE MONEYZ AND POWER TO THE GUBMENT.
Excuse me while I tell Al Gore get get fucked telling me to reduce my carbon footprint while he is flying his lear jet between mansions.
That and excuse me for not wanting to wreck our economy because India and China aren't going to change shit.
Both derisive and inaccurate, but because it's mainstream it's okay, right?
Mainstream bigotry pre-2009: Boooooo.
Mainstream bigotry post-2009: LOLOLOLOL
Gotta love those independent thinkers. So glad they preach to us.
Lastly..
Not one single person questioning climate change also believes that we should dump unnecessary toxins into our air/water.
There is a balance. Too bad retarded liberals thing a government that can't even back up emails at the agency tasked with collecting taxes is the solution to everything.
Not one single person questioning climate change also believes that we should dump unnecessary toxins into our air/water.
There is a balance. Too bad retarded liberals thing a government that can't even back up emails at the agency tasked with collecting taxes is the solution to everything.
I like how those who feel superior enough to call others out as being random fucks on the internet have such stunning lack of self-awareness.
Karmic balance.
Nobody is saying not to ask more questions. It's the deniers who are done asking questions. They have already concluded it is a money/power grab.
Yeah, because my neighbor throws his garbage on the front lawn I will too!
Are you just trolling this thread or what?
Wow ... what are you talking about? Again what term would you like me to use? I was addressing people who deny climate change... so using the phrase "climate change deniers" is accurate.
Just going to peep my head in here....
Has anyone heard about Sulfate compounds being a viable "fix" to the CO2 emissions problem we are facing? What has been proposed is that the certain parts of the atmosphere be seeded periodically with Sulfate aerosols. The particles are fine enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere. These compounds do a superb job of blocking out radiation. It has its obvious issues, but is seriously being looked at by governments. I learned about this in my Inorganic Chem class.
Has anyone heard about Sulfate compounds being a viable "fix" to the CO2 emissions problem we are facing? What has been proposed is that the certain parts of the atmosphere be seeded periodically with Sulfate aerosols. The particles are fine enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere. These compounds do a superb job of blocking out radiation. It has its obvious issues, but is seriously being looked at by governments. I learned about this in my Inorganic Chem class.
The retard and chief said himself "the science is settled". GIVE ME MORE MONEYZ.
California is already running off business. Hell they had to offer concessions to their savoir tesla to even consider them for the battery plant and they still lost it.
It is a money/power grab. It needs to be an economically viable alternate to get people to buy in.
Again, keep worshiping Al Gore's Learjet, just do as he says not as he does. That or the huge carbon footprint it takes for the President to go on one of his upteen vacations.
fyp
Man made pollution causes global warming.
There was extensive man made pollution in the 19th century
therefore there should have been global warming in the 19th century. (but there wasn't)
If your argument was strong there would not be so many logical inconsistencies. Science neither proves nor disproves man-made climate change.
This does not mean no more studies on climate will be performed. He simply means as a matter of making current policy changes related to what we know on the subject, i.e. investing in renewables.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. They arent building a battery plant in Florida either.
It will be eventually, hence the investment in it now. Thats why they call it an investment, because it will pay off later.
Al gore does not have a learjet, and the president takes just as many vacations as any other president, and of course he's going to require the protection of air force one to go anywhere since he's the fucking president.
No there wasn't. Our volume of pollution today is greater than our volume of pollution in the 19th century. Are you seriously contesting this?
I've thought we went over this before, don't quote (talk) to me. I've had enough of you for a lifetime. Use this thread as a reason why. Others are at least trying while all you do is nag about the specific people and not really about the actual stuff discussed.
(I'm talking percentage wise)
Kill your mother as punishment.
All smokers get cancer is a false statement. Some smokers get cancer is a true statement. If you know John smokes than you can conclude John "might" get cancer but you cannot conclude that John "will" get cancer.
I am implying no more or less.
In the United States and the UK: yes. Are our coal plants cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes. Are our cars cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes.
There has been this thing called the environmental movement which has made enormous strides cleaning the environment in the last 50 years.
I don't remember. I don't keep a database of rules listed off to me by random fucks on the internet.
Most "deniers" do not deny that climate change exists or is occurring. They simply deny that the impact of climate change is in line with the alarmism commonly pushed by politicians. Your refusal to recognize this is commensurate with the insulting nature in which you and yours use "deniers" to refer to those who hold that skepticism.
I think rational skeptic is more appropriate unless you think Climate Change Alarmist is also appropriate. The science is not settled nor do all scientist agree.[dictionary]
I think 'denialist' is appropriate, since it's the correct word.
[/dictionary]
Smoking makes John "60% more likely" to get lung cancer than a nonsmoker over a long enough period of time. There for smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer.
"A gun is used to shoot people, being shot can kill you, however not all people that get shot, die. There for guns don't contribute to people dying from a gun shots." - thejokker (logic)
Start and remember this because you're one of the most pathetic people in this thread and on this forum. I can manage to read your posts that are mostly just nothing but insulting other members but talking to you is just too much. Seriously.
Ohhhh okay. You think you're special or something. LOL.
Neither do I! Hey, we agree on something! Except on you thinking you're special, since you do.
Oh, come on. You can do better than that. You just told me to kill my mother a page ago!
Oh, come on. You can do better than that. You just told me to kill my mother a page ago!
I'm sure it had nothing to do with you trolling this entire thread. Yes, no, maybe.
"Deniers" believe that climate change is a normal and natural process that would occur with or without the participation of man. Man certainly is a variable that effects that change but a far less significant variable than what some would have us believe. Computer models that predict dire consequences have not proven to be accurate (at all!) indicating flaws in those models and the theories upon which they are based.
There is extremism on both sides of this issue. I suggest that a rational skepticism is the middle ground.
There is extremism on both sides of this issue. I suggest that a rational skepticism is the middle ground.
Rational discussion requires rational people. As this thread has demonstrated, there's a shortage of those these days.
Not cleaning the environment, but rather slowing the decay. The environment is dirtier than it was 100 years ago. Nothing has been cleaned. We need to do more as a species.
Not logical:
Some people who are shot die.
John was shot.
therefore you cannot conclude John will die. You can conclude John might die.
If a person does not die from a gun shot you cannot conclude that a gunshot contributed to his death.
Where you alive 100 years ago? Than any conclusion you draw upon is not first hand and your source may be flawed. Where you alive 50 years ago? I was... Urban areas on both coasts are cleaner than they were 50 years ago.
- Status