Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.
thejokker said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I think it's better to overestimating man's ability to impact the global climate than underestimating. The latter could be very expensive to fix and it could be too late. Why not be proactive rather than reactive?
 
Stiletto said:
Rational discussion requires rational people. As this thread has demonstrated, there's a shortage of those these days.
Click to expand...
Those who make false statements such as "the science is settled" or "all scientists agree" are not rational.
 
boomboy2k1 said:
I think it's better to overestimating man's ability to impact the global climate than underestimating. The latter could be very expensive to fix and it could be too late. Why not be proactive rather than reactive?
Click to expand...
Fixing a problem that does not really exist can be as expensive and can create more problems that are equally difficult to fix. Computer models based upon the theory of global warming fail to predict the weather over the last decade therefore the models are positively flawed. While this does not disprove the theory of global warming it certainly weakens the argument that it is actually occurring.

If it's not broke than don't fix it...
 
thejokker said:
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.
Click to expand...

You missed it. He is more likely to die being shot than not shot.
 
JaiWebb said:
I only need the majority of smart people, not all of them.
Click to expand...
At one time the majority of smart people believed the earth was flat and burnt people at the stake who disagreed with them. Obviously they were not as smart as those they burned.

If they are as smart as many believe than they should be able to produce a more credible argument. They should be able to persuade us with real facts and not pretend that the naked emperor has new clothes.
 
boomboy2k1 said:
I think it's better to overestimating man's ability to impact the global climate than underestimating. The latter could be very expensive to fix and it could be too late. Why not be proactive rather than reactive?
Click to expand...

How do we generally look upon those who bought bomb shelters in the 50s, or who started prepping for an Ice Age in the 70s, or who stockpiled water and batteries and spend New Year's Eve 1999 in their basements? Do we look at them and say "Wow, those people had the right idea"? No, we, quite rightly, recognize hysteria. Why then willingly engage in the same activity as those from that past at whom we scoff? Isn't science about learning from mistakes?
 
thejokker said:
You cannot conclude that with the given information.

John was shot. His little toe as grazed and he needed a band-aid. He is not in any danger.
Click to expand...

Kind of like that lady on the 911 call from Sandy hook. She was shot in the foot and seemed calm on the call. We were all told that call was too graphic to be heard.
 
Stiletto said:
How do we generally look upon those who bought bomb shelters in the 50s, or who started prepping for an Ice Age in the 70s, or who stockpiled water and batteries and spend New Year's Eve 1999 in their basements? Do we look at them and say "Wow, those people had the right idea"? No, we, quite rightly, recognize hysteria. Why then willingly engage in the same activity as those from that past at whom we scoff? Isn't science about learning from mistakes?
Click to expand...
this...
 
thejokker said:
At one time the majority of smart people believed the earth was flat and burnt people at the stake who disagreed with them. Obviously they were not as smart as those they burned.
Click to expand...

At one time we lived in trees and ate mostly berries. Also, I would say that was the majority of stupid people not believing the minority of smart people trying to explain it to them. Hey, just like regular people not believing the scientists that actually know what they're talking about today. Burn those scientists!!!

If they are as smart as many believe than they should be able to produce a more credible argument. They should be able to persuade us with real facts and not pretend that the naked emperor has new clothes
Click to expand...

They are, stupid people don't care. Humans be like that.
 
thejokker said:
You cannot conclude that with the given information.

John was shot. His little toe as grazed and he needed a band-aid. He is not in any danger.
Click to expand...

You told me I was wrong with my analogy yet now you're using your analogy to tell me how mine was wrong. No wonder scientists can't get through to you.
 
I'm sorry, but if you think climate change isn't real, you don't have a "different opinion." You are just wrong. Deal with it.
 
Sure there should be more research, etc but we can't just ignore the alarming increase of C02 in our atmosphere. Ignoring it is like sweeping dirt under the rug. If we keep on sweeping, there will be no more rug to sweep dirt under. Then we have a problem.
 
Spewn said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry

"The botanical definition of a berry is a fleshy fruit produced from a single flower and containing one ovary.Grapes and avocados are two common examples."

Yeah, who cares about that dumb shit.
Click to expand...

In everyday English, "berry" is a term for any small edible fruit. These "berries" are usually juicy, round, brightly coloured, sweet or sour, and do not have a stone or pit, although many seeds may be present.
Click to expand...

Fuck that vernacular shit, amirite?
 
Stiletto said:
Fuck that vernacular shit, amirite?
Click to expand...

grasping-at-straws1.jpg
 
Spewn said:
So now you're arguing that a grape is *not* a small edible fruit?
Click to expand...

I'm quoting from the very article you linked, two paragraphs after your quote. In common vernacular, no, grapes are not berries. In common vernacular, tomatoes are not fruit. In common vernacular, spiders are insects. Do you not know this basic distinction, or are you dedicated to intellectual dishonesty?
 
Stiletto said:
I'm quoting from the very article you linked, two paragraphs after your quote. In common vernacular, no, grapes are not berries. In common vernacular, tomatoes are not fruit. In common vernacular, spiders are insects. Do you not know this basic distinction, or are you dedicated to intellectual dishonesty?
Click to expand...

First of all this is what you quoted.

"In everyday English, "berry" is a term for any small edible fruit. These "berries" are usually juicy, round, brightly coloured, sweet or sour, and do not have a stone or pit, although many seeds may be present. "

In order for you to insist that a grape is not a berry, you'd have to argue that a grape is not a small edible fruit. If any small edible fruit is a berry, in "everyday English", then a grape could only not be a berry "in everyday English" if it were not a small edible fruit.

Second of all, the fact that most people may not think of a grape as a berry doesn't make someone else who correctly refers to a grape as a berry wrong for doing so. You attempted to correct someone who suggested ancient people "ate berries" by saying saying that people, in-fact, ate grapes(among other things) implying that you thought grapes were not berries. I think it's been sufficiently established that grapes are berries, whether you think of them that way or not.
 
JaiWebb said:
You told me I was wrong with my analogy yet now you're using your analogy to tell me how mine was wrong. No wonder scientists can't get through to you.
Click to expand...
The original syllogism:
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.

You replied: "You missed it. He is more likely to die being shot than not shot."

There was no information regarding the severity of the injury therefore you "cannot" conclude he is more likely to die being shot than not.

Logic is not your strong suit.
 
thejokker said:
At one time the majority of smart people believed the earth was flat and burnt people at the stake who disagreed with them. Obviously they were not as smart as those they burned.

If they are as smart as many believe than they should be able to produce a more credible argument. They should be able to persuade us with real facts and not pretend that the naked emperor has new clothes.
Click to expand...

At one time the majority of people believed in a mystical sky man who snapped his fingers and created everything. You cannot compare ancient science to the science of today. Mankind is no longer making the kind of mistakes we used to when analyzing a subject.
 
Stiletto said:
How do we generally look upon those who bought bomb shelters in the 50s, or who started prepping for an Ice Age in the 70s, or who stockpiled water and batteries and spend New Year's Eve 1999 in their basements? Do we look at them and say "Wow, those people had the right idea"? No, we, quite rightly, recognize hysteria. Why then willingly engage in the same activity as those from that past at whom we scoff? Isn't science about learning from mistakes?
Click to expand...

And those people represented the fringe minority to the same degree that climate skeptics do today. The skeptics are the minority making irrational claims, not the pro climate change scientists.
 
Stiletto said:
How do we generally look upon those who bought bomb shelters in the 50s, or who started prepping for an Ice Age in the 70s, or who stockpiled water and batteries and spend New Year's Eve 1999 in their basements? Do we look at them and say "Wow, those people had the right idea"? No, we, quite rightly, recognize hysteria. Why then willingly engage in the same activity as those from that past at whom we scoff? Isn't science about learning from mistakes?
Click to expand...

There wasn't scientific consensus of any kind for cooling in the 70's. There were very few papers on it. The overwhelming majority still supported warming. Why the false info on this repeatedly here? You're misrepresenting science. For what purpose?

Y2k hype led to MASSIVE efforts to fix it such that basically everything was prepared. I wasn't first-hand working on it at the time, but I got to see second-hand a lot of the effort in the financial services industry. The hype about what would happen was media-induced. The actual testing and preparedness going on in industries where it mattered was logically coordinated from what I saw.

We scoff at preppers and stuff still.. and people who yell about buying gold due to hyperinflation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top