This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It is insulting to call science a religion... If you are going to debate the topic then prove it wrong. Calling it a religion is just a science denialism buzzphrase, probably cooked up straight in an Oil company's board room.

Even the oil companies get it right sometimes...

LOL! You can't be serious? ALL of science is wrong, EXCEPT the oil companies who conveniently profit off of the populace not believing that Climate Change is real. That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day!

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer
Rational debate, healthy skepticism, is met with name-calling and slurs and insults if you don't bow down upon the altar of the Church of Climate Change.

Rational debate? Healthy skepticism? Where? All I've seen in this thread is blind dismissal of Climate Change without ANY relevant facts or figures to back that dismissal up. Oh I've also seen a healthy dose of using slurs about the science (Church of Climate Change for instance). How about actually formulating a proper rebuttal to the thread before you start accusing your opponents of being closed minded?

Been plenty of threads on the topic.

And really, this is just more polarising.

Because you have people like me, that are skeptical.

And then there are the true believers. . . .

a reply to: jrod

Just because Cook was able to collect a group of pal reviewed papers and put them into a poll and claim a 97% consensus is much like a Crown Prosecutor only submitting police witness accounts to a charge of police brutality and using the consensus which is less then certain to make a conclusion on . Cook fudged the numbers and did not represent the majority of climate science but picked those papers that were written to show the human influence to global warming .There is a 0 trend in warming for over 18 years . The data was adjusted and it's through the adjustments that they could torture out of the data a increase in temps .

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Crackpot theories? Really?!? Crackpot theories is Congressmen Smith attending more meetings on aliens than on climate change real or imagined. How are you going to be informed on a matter if you don't even read up on the background reading? Then Smith has the GALL to say that climate change is unproven. Typical science denialism...

That is why the government shouldn't be in charge of anything, from climate control to the economy.

But while Congressman Smith might be right for the wrong reason, he is right. There is no proof that

1) the climate is heading towards a tipping point

2) humans have caused the tipping point

3) that the government can do anything about it

4) that stronger, more powerful government is not heading towards totalitarianism

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

EWWWW. . . the sarcasm . . . it burns. . . . . not really.

So you are stating that the issue hasn't become politicised?

really?

Do tell!

Perhaps over rainbow tea with my unicorn friends in attendence!

a reply to: beezzer

So in other words, you are just going to contribute more of the same from the Climate Change denial camp. No actual arguments. Just more useless sayings that sound profound but don't prove or disprove anything.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

With our friend the scientific method.

Clearly stated predictions and reproducible results are all that are necessary to confirm or refute any particular hypothesis.

Politically motivated postulates which cannot be tested do not qualify.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

So in other words, you are just going to contribute more of the same from the Climate Change denial camp. No actual arguments. Just more useless sayings that sound profound but don't prove or disprove anything.

Well then, convince me.

I only have a masters in a science-related field, so I ain't as a stupiderest as a some of the other denyers, (hee-yuk) but explain it, and use small words, DOCTOR, since you am a smarter than uh. . . the rest of us!

Use science that isn't influenced by a government wanting to push an agenda.
Use data that has been peer-reviewed.
Use data with a better source than the daily Kos, or MSNBC.

If it's that clear cut then it should be easy, DOCTOR!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not the goal to deny its there goal to spread doubt. Gotta protect those financial investments, can't have the thought of global destruction getting in the way of profit.

These are the same folks that want to get rid of public education, the EPA and just about every environmental protections in place and all welfare.


Its clearly a political agenda they are falling for.

originally posted by: beezzer
Well then, convince me.

Why would anyone bother? There's nothing in the world which will convince those who are determined not to accept Climate Change no matter what is pulled out of the magician's hat (bunny joke intended).

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

EWWWW. . . the sarcasm . . . it burns. . . . . not really.

So you are stating that the issue hasn't become politicised?

really?

Do tell!

Perhaps over rainbow tea with my unicorn friends in attendence!

LOL

Seriously though, yes man made global warming has been politicized. I'll agree that's not good.
Man made global warming and all related science and data and issues are also squarely in the sights of big oil/coal/gas/power companies and auto companies. That's not good either. Those two kinda cancel each other out.

But if you step back, you have to agree that every one of the thousands of scientists and support staff and science majors and all the Universities...they can't all be in on a political conspiracy. That wouldn't make any sense. NASA Can't be lying to us..because that would be thousands of people in on a conspiracy. That doesn't make sense to me.

NASA mainly collects DATA from it's missions, especially it's earth missions. It would seem to me that we need all the data we can get on this stuff. If we can't trust NASA then we need to fire everyone there and start over with people that aren't in on the biggest conspiracy on earth.

a reply to: masqua

Science has already tried this approach.

originally posted by: masqua

originally posted by: beezzer
Well then, convince me.

Why would anyone bother? There's nothing it the world which will convince those who are determined not to accept Climate Change no matter what is pulled out of the magician's hat (bunny joke intended).

If the "science" is so clear, then there shouldn't be an issue.

But there is.

It's all in the interpretation of the data.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Despite your definition of religion having a set dogma there are some people that study ,learn ,and change the way they look at the world and are not stuck in a dogma .There have been plenty of scientist in the past that went to their grave believing the science of the day only to have been overturned after their parting ... Now you tell me if science didn't have it's own dogma of the day if you can .

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

That's the thing Beez. It's NOT politicized outside the US. Outside of the US it's scientific fact. There reason for the politicization is because it doesn't feed American lobbies and would actually cost money to do anything about this.

a reply to: amazing

Stalin once said that it is the person counting the votes, that wins the election.

As for climate data?

It is the person "interpreting" the data that gets to call it.

A common saying in statistics, "Torture numbers long enough and they'll give you any answer you want."

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

So you're saying that we can't trust any scientists? That's going to really suck. How will we ever know anything? Explore anything? Can't trust the moon landing that must have been a hoax because the space race was highly politicized. Scientists were responsible for that. That's a slippery slope.

With our friend the scientific method.

Clearly stated predictions and reproducible results are all that are necessary to confirm or refute any particular hypothesis.

Politically motivated postulates which cannot be tested do not qualify.

And that's why there are so many scientists all over the earth doing research and collecting data. You can't use the scientific method effectively if you don't have enough data.

Another term besides scientific method you should be aware of is "Occam's Razor" The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

In this discussion, it would mean that is it more likely that hundreds of thousands of scientists are lying to us and in on the biggest conspiracy of all time or...are they on to something and doing good research and publishing good papers about it.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the conspiracy theory is too complex to me the correct hypothesis here. It would appear that man made global warming is real.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing


But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?

When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.

Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.

That's the thing Beez. It's NOT politicized outside the US. Outside of the US it's scientific fact. There reason for the politicization is because it doesn't feed American lobbies and would actually cost money to do anything about this.

I wanted to write several things, but basically, I don't believe you.

Sorry.

I guess I'm a skeptic (or evil heathen denier) here as well.