Climate change? do you believe it?

[Rotalihinna]

You are one dumb, non-reading motherfucker.

Didn't I just fucking say that nobody denies climate change exists, and that humans have an effect on the climate. Wasn't that the whole point of that big block of my text that you just quoted?

Once again, the only point of contention is HOW FUCKING MUCH is due to human activity, and whether or not it's as bad as the scientists whose livelihood depends on grant money to study climate change, say it is.

You can't logically say that humans are 90% responsible (or whatever number you want to use) for climate change because vehicle emissions didn't bring us out of the ice age. The climate has literally never stopped changing. Ever. Now all of a sudden you think that without human impact on the climate there would be no change? All of a sudden, for the first time in history? Really?

Lol so let me get this straight

Whenever someone says "manmade climate change exists" you say the usual retarded "climate is changing but not due to humans"

And then someone posts a study saying 97% of scientists agree that humans SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to global warming. What do you do? Instead of saying you were wrong (or more likely, shutting the fuck up) you start throwing insults and say "BUT IT DOESNT SAY EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS MAN MADE"

Is 'significant' not enough for you, stupid fuck? You need a number like 39, 51 or 95? I'm not even gonna go into how impossible it is to put a number on such a thing.

Climate change is going to affect us negatively in the future, and we being a very significant contributor to it have the chance to do something, reduce our footprint and make the world a better place to live in both for ourselves and the future generations.

Global warming doesn't need to be 100% man made for men to be able to do something against it. We are responsible for it to some degree and thus can do something.

Plus climate science will enable us to do something about the parts that we aren't responsible for, too. That is, if fucking trash like you stop talking like you have the faintest idea about science. All because some important men with money stand to gain from ignorance on this subject and want you to continue blabbering their stupid opinions everywhere.

I'm not saying people like you are why the US public can still astonishingly refuse to believe things where there's a near unanimous consensus among scientists (like evolution). Some people with money want you that way, and you're just too stupid to understand that MATTERS OF SCIENCE GET SETTLED BY SCIENTISTS not politicians.

 

[samgeneric]

I think you don't know your fallacies, champ.

Congrats you have pointed out that I used the logical fallacy, "appeal to the authority" to refute a position that that appeal couldn't be made. I'm so sick of people in this forum thinking that saying the names of logical fallacies at each other passes for intelligent debate.

You are one dumb, non-reading motherfucker.

Acknowledged. I am one dumb, non-reading motherfucker. At least I'm not the one who doesn't believe in science. I highly recommend you pick up an intro to stats textbook, and turn to the section on controlling for variables. Then go read a few scientific papers that do propose what percentage of climate change is attributable to humans. You are right; they do vary some. Then use the knowledge you gain from learning something by reading (Me don't know how read so me just let u do read). Then, if you'd like, you can critique their models and provide some intelligence to the debate you are participating in. Until then, you're just a Rush Limbaugh mouthpiece. Good for you...

You can't logically say that humans are 90% responsible (or whatever number you want to use) for climate change because vehicle emissions didn't bring us out of the ice age. The climate has literally never stopped changing. Ever. Now all of a sudden you think that without human impact on the climate there would be no change? All of a sudden, for the first time in history? Really?

Yes, all of the sudden, for the first time in history, humans have had a greater impact on climate change. Correct. And yes, you can logically say it, because we have developed fairly good mathematical modeling and can actually measure it. If you don't like the models, then grow up, get a PhD and improve them or critique them. The fact that the climate has literally never stopped changing bares absolutely no weight with regard to the question of whether we are impacting it today. So, for the fun of contributing to the yelling logical fallacies at each other, I believe we call that a red herring or a non sequitur.

 

[IceToEskimos]

Congrats you have pointed out that I used the logical fallacy, "appeal to the authority" to refute a position that that appeal couldn't be made

No, actually you used it here:

I think there is way too much consensus in the scientific community to deny global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it.

Do you see how your entire argument is fallacious?

SCIENTISTS SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE/IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID IT

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Lol so let me get this straight

Whenever someone says "manmade climate change exists" you say the usual retarded "climate is changing but not due to humans"

but not due to humans

but not due to humans

but not due to humans

You are slow. Jesus Fuck, please reread what I wrote and show me where it says that. I feel like a broken record here because 3 posts in a row I've had to repeat myself. Goddamn.

And then someone posts a study saying 97% of scientists agree that humans SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to global warming. What do you do? Instead of saying you were wrong (or more likely, shutting the fuck up) you start throwing insults and say "BUT IT DOESNT SAY EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS MAN MADE"

Is 'significant' not enough for you, stupid fuck? You need a number like 39, 51 or 95? I'm not even gonna go into how impossible it is to put a number on such a thing.

Now we're getting somewhere. It appears you never got the memo regarding that study being debunked and that 97% number means nothing.

The word "significant" is not relevant because it was never used in the study. The question was very simple: whether humans have caused some global warming.

Some.

In other words, nothing to do with "significance" was mentioned. And everybody can agree we have some impact. But that's not what the alarmist want us to believe is it? That doesn't get press and it doesn't get grant money. So goofs like you parrot the number from a study you never even bothered to read, and then have the nerve to talk down on someone that has.

Climate change is going to affect us negatively in the future

Based on what?

I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me what our climate conditions should actually be. You're so worried about climate change as if our current climate is assumed to be the ideal - but what are you basing that on?

 

[geofferson]

The 97% stat being thrown around by the media is nonsense. 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs: Global Warming Petition Project

 

[samgeneric]

No, actually you used it here:

Do you see how your entire argument is fallacious?

SCIENTISTS SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE/IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID IT

Well, you're right about one thing: that is an appeal to authority.

Doesn't make the argument fallacious, nor is my logic tautological as you seem to think.

It makes one thing I said an appeal to authority. Is there a fallacy that says that just because someone uses what can be construed as a fallacy in their argument it doesn't mean the facts or the supporting reasoning is less true? Because I think that applies here.

My opinion is not based on the fact that there is consensus. My opinion is based on what that consensus is based upon. Sorry I didn't do the single recursive leap for you.

Millions of scientists do agree on global warming. Ok, that's an appeal to authority. Why do those scientists agree?

Is it a conspiracy that they have all decided to jump on board in order to secure funding for their projects? Maybe. Is it because they believe that it actually is something that is happening based on research they have seen or done? I believe it is. There is a lot of good science done on climate. And yes I'm aware that these are not the only two options for why one might support or deny climate change. I also am aware that I have not represented either argument in their complete form thus committing the logical fallacies of strawman and false dichotomy. Doesn't make my point any less true.

 

[Moxie]

The "debate" is being controlled by the same people that bring you such gems of wisdom as.

• Men and women are equal.
• Race is just a social construct.
• Islam is a religion of peace.
• Diversity is a strength.
• Socialism and/or communism will work this time, we just didn't have the right people last time.
• White people are responsible for all the ills of the world, like you know, racism, sexism, homophobia, wealth inequality and of course global warming.

Besides his "religion of peace" comment, how well known was President Bush for promoting those type of things? How about Dick Cheney or John Boehner? The 2016 Republican candidates?

Do those type of people have "control" of some sort? Do oil companies exert any type of influence?

Rush Limbaugh is heard weekly via radio by over 10 million people. Al Gore is not. Does Limbaugh welcome open debate over the topic, or does he only push one side in a "controlled" type of way?


BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush aide 'edited climate papers'

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released - Los Angeles Times

Former Environment Official Accuses Cheney of Cutting Climate Testimony | Fox News

Fossil fuels lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where the 2016 GOP contenders stand on climate change

Not a photoshop. Yes, Condoleezza Rice had an oil tanker named after her.

If you work for a living you have to go along with all of it or risk losing your job

In science maybe, but in all jobs?

Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming - Gallup Poll


Many psychologists, marketers, and politicians understand the underdog effect. I don't think it's a coincidence that various interests (from different sides of the global warming debate) all like to push the narrative that they are David going up against Goliath.

 

[IceToEskimos]

My opinion is based on what that consensus is based upon.

Are you a climate scientist?

Cite some sources.

 

[samgeneric]

Logical Fallacies... Come on guys

Are you a climate scientist?

Cite some sources.

Aaaaand, you have just misrepresented or misunderstood the entire context of that sentence. Good for you. You would make an excellent, honest journalist.

Ok, I gotta say it because I'm sick of it, and I'm certain that I will get flamed for it. But whatever...

Every time I see an argument spring up on this forum, people like to point out very loudly which logical fallacies are being employed.

Arguments are like chess. One person makes one, then the other person makes one, then someone responds, and round and round you go. Logical fallacies are weaknesses in arguments. They can be exploited by a respondent. In a good back and forth, where one arguer uses a fallacy, clarification can be asked for or arguments can be made that force further clarify.

Logical fallacies are not, in themselves, evidence that the argument is false or that the argument when taken in its totality is weak. They are nothing more than a single weak point in the presentation of an argument. Pointing them out as if their use has just won you the argument is akin reaching across the chess board every move and tipping over your opponents king and saying, "I won."

You didn't actually win. You just proved that you are absurdly bad at chess.

 

[Moxie]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs: Global Warming Petition Project

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rotalihinna]

Are you a climate scientist?

Cite some sources.

In other words, nothing to do with "significance" was mentioned. And everybody can agree we have some impact. But that's not what the alarmist want us to believe is it? That doesn't get press and it doesn't get grant money. So goofs like you parrot the number from a study you never even bothered to read, and then have the nerve to talk down on someone that has.

I can't believe I have to do this, but let me just copy the first fucking thing Wikipedia says on the subject.

"IPCC reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.[7][8][9] In 2010 that finding was recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[10][A] Affirming these findings in 2013, the IPCC stated that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation."

So most scientists agree that most of global warming is being caused by humans.

This was a study one by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has been recognized by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Royal Society of Canada,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Academié des Sciences,
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher,
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia dei Lincei,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of the UK,
National Academy of Sciences (USA)

So yeah, just go ahead and refuse what all major bodies of science in the world have confirmed. Because you're good at SEO or whatever the fuck you're good at (doubtful), and you know everything better than the scientists who are specialized in this field and devoted their fucking lives to it.

Or even better! You're just too smart to believe in this EXTREMELY MASSIVE covert operation that every fucking body of science in the world is secretly a proponent of in a humongous scheme to get more Climate Moneyz.

Every scientist in the world is secretly trying to scam you out of your hard earned penis enlargement money. They're so coordinated too! Also jews did WTC right?

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

^^ Nope, none of those scientists or their institutions count, because their pay check relies on that data being true.

See how easy it is to throw scientific data out the window? I almost feel like a creationist now.

 

[samgeneric]

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Sowell writes about the phenomena of assigning special meaning to people who have credentials in his book Intellectuals and Society. Great book if you're looking for some good summer reading. I find our belief as a society in the existence of credentialed oracles to be incredibly off-putting.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

blerghabble...

Does it bother you that all of the climate change model projections have been wrong? Every single one. Or that for the last 15 years, despite consistent growth in CO2 output that global temps haven't risen as predicted?

Every single prediction from climate alarmists over the last 30+ years has been wrong. How are you able to put so much faith in the numbers and predictions of a group of people who are literally batting .000?

Thomas Sowell writes about the phenomena of assigning special meaning to people who have credentials in his book Intellectuals and Society. Great book if you're looking for some good summer reading. I find our belief as a society in the existence of credentialed oracles to be incredibly off-putting.

ORLY? Cause you were just tossing around the "97% of scientists" debunked bullshit earlier in the thread, now all of a sudden you're wary of credentialed oracles?

 

[samgeneric]

Does it bother you that all of the climate change model projections have been wrong? Every single one. Or that for the last 15 years, despite consistent growth in CO2 output that global temps haven't risen as predicted?

Every single prediction from climate alarmists over the last 30+ years has been wrong. How are you able to put so much faith in the numbers and predictions of a group of people who are literally batting .000?

Which predictions specifically? Which model are you talking about? Some of those models caused government policy changes (widescale bans of chlorofluorocarbons for example) that impacted greatly the abilities of existing models to predict the future.

Moreover, you do realize that every time a model is wrong, that gives us an ability to assess why which further improves models. There are quite a few things that have been predicted by models that actually seem to occur. For example West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise.

Just because some scientists have shitty or undeveloped models, doesn't invalidate the rest of the body of science that exists.

 

[Rotalihinna]

At some point you really run out of things to say to someone who doesn't believe in science and numbers. Read some fucking papers on the subject. Nothing other than CO2 levels can even remotely come close to explaining the temperature levels being experienced on Earth. Yeah, disregard everything all credible scientists are saying because they've been wrong on things before. Holy shit.

I'm not even gonna go into the "what if climate science is wrong and we create a better world for nothing?" type of backwards thinking that goes on in the brains of retards like you, which is ultimately the reason why the US is so much behind many European nations when it comes to green energy.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I'm not even gonna go into the "what if climate science is wrong and we create a better world for nothing?" type of backwards thinking that goes on in the brains of retards like you, which is ultimately the reason why the US is so much behind many European nations when it comes to green energy.

And there we go, finally some honesty. This isn't about catastrophic climate change, you just want to create a "better world". Nothing wrong with that. Not sure how you define that, but at least we can move away from the nonsense about "ermagerd we all gone die" that people like you seem to wrap up the desire for a better world in.

To start with, maybe we use too much electricity...maybe if we all turned off our computers, the world would be a better place. Let's give it a shot, you first.

 

[jeffrey]

I had no idea wickedfire was full of scientists...

The more you know..

 

[Rotalihinna]

And there we go, finally some honesty. This isn't about catastrophic climate change, you just want to create a "better world". Nothing wrong with that. Not sure how you define that, but at least we can move away from the nonsense about "ermagerd we all gone die" that people like you seem to wrap up the desire for a better world in.

To start with, maybe we use too much electricity...maybe if we all turned off our computers, the world would be a better place. Let's give it a shot, you first.

Who said we're all gonna die? Not me, and not those scientists. What's true though, whether you believe it or not, is that there's global warming + it's gonna have very negative effects on us in the future (how much in the future? don't know) + we contribute to it very significantly + there are things that we can do about it.

People who refuse simple climate facts because Glenn Beck is telling them to do so is a big obstacle for green energy & environmental causes in the US. It's hurting the countries' international competitiveness.

 

[IceToEskimos]

TIL that UG and I DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE.

I felt bad at first, but then I realized that if you need faith for your science to work, it's probably shitty "science".