It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
One big problem here is the message isn't getting out correctly.

You've got Bill Nye, Neil Degrass Tyson (sp), Al Gore and...Scientists. We know that Scientists usually aren't the best public speakers or creatives. Where are the people that really believe in this issue as far as making compelling commercials or Public service announcements or documentaries.

If you're against Climate change...You don't say anyone's opinions by coming up with your own charts and graphs. Because who's going to believe that you're smarter than an actual Scientist? There's not credibility with that argument. Who's going to believe that you are the genius that actually figured it all out when all of the worlds scientists did not. and Secondly, Bringing up Al Gore and like some short science fiction stories about coming ice ages, doesn't nothing to sway anyones opinions. You need to quote actual scientists.

Thirdly, Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I asked you a direct question about climate change two pages ago. You waffled.
edit on 13 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Ok. So you just want to argue. Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
One big problem here is the message isn't getting out correctly.

You've got Bill Nye, Neil Degrass Tyson (sp), Al Gore and...Scientists. We know that Scientists usually aren't the best public speakers or creatives. Where are the people that really believe in this issue as far as making compelling commercials or Public service announcements or documentaries.

If you're against Climate change...You don't say anyone's opinions by coming up with your own charts and graphs. Because who's going to believe that you're smarter than an actual Scientist? There's not credibility with that argument. Who's going to believe that you are the genius that actually figured it all out when all of the worlds scientists did not. and Secondly, Bringing up Al Gore and like some short science fiction stories about coming ice ages, doesn't nothing to sway anyones opinions. You need to quote actual scientists.

Thirdly, Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."


I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I own several of his books and find him to be an excellent speaker, about astrophysics. Unfortunately he's not a climate scientist. Recently he tweeted along the lines of "people believe these hurricane forecasts but they question climate models?" The obvious implication was that if people believe we can predict the weather why are our climate models so hard to believe?

:facepalm:

An actual climate scientist responded to him, saying comments like that hurt, rather than help, the discussion because he's contributing to confusion among laymen about the differences between weather and climate. NDT apologized, foot in mouth, accordingly. He should probably stick to his area of expertise.

Al Gore... he's badly hurting your cause because he is way over the top, and has been wrong too much with his doomsday predictions.

See a pattern here? It's not a problem of not effectively getting the message out. The problem is the message you're trying to send.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a weak way to dodge a direct and relevant question.

Again, it's ok to say you don't know.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If science is self correcting why does it need any policing? Theoretically the scientific method alone is enough to deal with any 'rogue' or 'fake' science. Advocating imprisonment for someone whose work should be automatically filtered out is rather unnecessary, no? Evidence also shows that the 'self-correcting' notion is overblown. The vast majority of scientists caught in unethical work is via whistleblowers within their faculty; not by peer review and repetition of experiments.

I'm glad you brought funding up because that argument works both ways. Yes, oil companies etc have funded research that validates their purposes but so have alternative energy producers, government departments, climate change NGOs etc who have a financial/political incentive for particular results. Unfortunately all the dodgy funding argument does is prove that it is possible to manipulate science via money.

The bigger issue is that science is all about funding, not outcomes.

I'm struggling to provide you with lots of data to review because I am posting from a mobile phone which makes it all a massive hassle. However if we take a very well known piece of work in the subject (Daniele Fanelli, 2009 - How many scientists fabricate...) which gives a very conservative 2% figure for dodgy researchers we are looking at somewhere in the region of 16,000 unscientific papers per year (about 800,000 peer reviewed papers are published per annum) yet only around 500 a year are ever retracted. That's 15,500 papers a year weakening the entire edifice (because remember, new papers will be built upon those false results).

Whilst the scientific community remains as opaque as it does regarding data, funding and research intentions it represents a house of cards that will one day come crashing down.
edit on 13/9/17 by cheesyleps because: Mis-spelt Fanelli's forename.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Climate change always seems to be lumped in with Man made climate change. Climate change is real - we have plenty of data and history to tell us that. Whether man's activity causes it is another question and anyone who suggests jailing a person for disagreeing with the BS rammed down our throats about man made climate change is a fascist, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
One big problem here is the message isn't getting out correctly.

You've got Bill Nye, Neil Degrass Tyson (sp), Al Gore and...Scientists. We know that Scientists usually aren't the best public speakers or creatives. Where are the people that really believe in this issue as far as making compelling commercials or Public service announcements or documentaries.

If you're against Climate change...You don't say anyone's opinions by coming up with your own charts and graphs. Because who's going to believe that you're smarter than an actual Scientist? There's not credibility with that argument. Who's going to believe that you are the genius that actually figured it all out when all of the worlds scientists did not. and Secondly, Bringing up Al Gore and like some short science fiction stories about coming ice ages, doesn't nothing to sway anyones opinions. You need to quote actual scientists.

Thirdly, Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."
I have to disagree on this point. Most skeptics don't accept "facts" from political people using rhetorical arguments to push an agenda. I can't talk to liberals who trust their media or conservatives that trust their media. It doesn't matter to me. When I hear that the science is done I know it is BS. Science proves itself wrong all the time. I see fear propaganda from the believers I see them jump on the fact we had two stronger hurricanes to prove their point. That's nonsense. You better have actual percentages of how we impact global warming "oh I forget we needed to change that phrase for some rhetorical reason" before you institute radical change and governance in my life.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Thats an interesting point. It reminds me of a discussion I once had with a very clever chap who was responsible for making the final decisions on which weather forecast would be published by the UK Met Office each day.

The way their process works is that they plug in lots and lots of data into their super computers which spend a long time chewing over the numbers and spit out about a dozen potential scenarios. A human then has to evaluate the projections and make the ultimate decision about which one is most likely.

The accuracy of the computers means that forecasting up to 72 hours ahead is exceptionally accurate but by the time you stretch that timeframe out to a week and beyond you may as well just play stick the tail on the donkey.

For all science's arrogance we can't even yet forecast weather properly. To act like all of this is settled science (itself a complete and utter scientific nonsense) is rather absurd.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Why is this so hard to understand? How could you not realize that the current climate change we are experiencing has a lot to do with mankind. We toss tons of chemicals into the air daily and you think this would not effect the climate?

How about the fact that we have destroyed much of the planet's natural resources over the years and you think this will not effect the planet?

I will never understand Climate change deniers.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

Thirdly, Isn't it strange that all Democrats believe in man made global warming but all conservatives don't? How does that happen? I'll tell you...conservatives listen to media that tell them global warming is fake, and democrats listen to media that tells them global warming is true.

We always believe what the media tells us. First rule of life. "People are stupid and will believe what they are told to believe."


That's a very American viewpoint. Here in the UK there isn't a single mainstream media source that would even question the truth of AGW/Climate change yet there are plenty of people from all across the political spectrum who are sceptics.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheesyleps
a reply to: face23785



For all science's arrogance we can't even yet forecast weather properly. To act like all of this is settled science (itself a complete and utter scientific nonsense) is rather absurd.


Science told us about the hurricanes.

So you don't think tossing chemical into the atmosphere daily has no effect on climate? Destroying natural resources has no effect on your environment?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheesyleps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If science is self correcting why does it need any policing? Theoretically the scientific method alone is enough to deal with any 'rogue' or 'fake' science. Advocating imprisonment for someone whose work should be automatically filtered out is rather unnecessary, no? Evidence also shows that the 'self-correcting' notion is overblown. The vast majority of scientists caught in unethical work is via whistleblowers within their faculty; not by peer review and repetition of experiments.

Theoretically you are right, but unfortunately in the real world propaganda drives perceptions and people will listen to that before scientists. Scientists may mostly agree on a subject, but if the news pushes a narrative that they don't then people believe that instead of doing the hard work of verifying the information themselves.


I'm glad you brought funding up because that argument works both ways. Yes, oil companies etc have funded research that validates their purposes but so have alternative energy producers, government departments, climate change NGOs etc who have a financial/political incentive for particular results. Unfortunately all the dodgy funding argument does is prove that it is possible to manipulate science via money.

The bigger issue is that science is all about funding, not outcomes.

No it isn't. You can't do any science if you don't have any money. The issue lies with people's lack of scientific education on what is and isn't science.


I'm struggling to provide you with lots of data to review because I am posting from a mobile phone which makes it all a massive hassle. However if we take a very well known piece of work in the subject (Daniele Fanelli, 2009 - How many scientists fabricate...) which gives a very conservative 2% figure for dodgy researchers we are looking at somewhere in the region of 16,000 unscientific papers per year (about 800,000 peer reviewed papers are published per annum) yet only around 500 a year are ever retracted. That's 15,500 papers a year weakening the entire edifice (because remember, new papers will be built upon those false results).

So? If 2% of the research produced is fraudulent, then that means that 98% is done along the scientific method. Playing the odds you have a VERY good chance of selecting an article at random about Climate Change and not be exposed to fraudulent research. So this looks like you are hyping up a statistic beyond it's purpose.

This is called the Fallacy of Large Numbers. Where you take a large number and isolate it to make it look worse than it really is.


Whilst the scientific community remains as opaque as it does regarding data, funding and research intentions it represents a house of cards that will one day come crashing down.

How is science opaque? You can review any of the data they release that you want. You may have to pay for a subscription to an academic publication, but you can still do it. Just because you don't want to expend the effort to see it doesn't make the field "opaque". You are just throwing out labels without knowing what you are talking about.
edit on 13-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught9966
Why is this so hard to understand? How could you not realize that the current climate change we are experiencing has a lot to do with mankind. We toss tons of chemicals into the air daily and you think this would not effect the climate?

How about the fact that we have destroyed much of the planet's natural resources over the years and you think this will not effect the planet?

I will never understand Climate change deniers.


Why is that necessary? Climate Change denier? Who in the history of Earth has ever denied that the climate changes?

It's the arrogance that causes the push back, and the push back creates a separation. But your method has been working so well up till now, why change it?
edit on 13-9-2017 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Who in the history of Earth has ever denied that the climate changes?

This guy for one



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught9966

I think this argument would have gone a long way with most people. Clean air clean water major concerns that directly effect everyone. The climate change movement seems more about globalism new world order or world communism. Take your pick. Bottom line climate change is a political idea that the world should be run by technocrats sort of central planning which is just not in our American DNA.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Wait. You mean the 'big boys' who never seem to be prosecuted for what appear to be clear violations of law?

Roger. I doubt anyone has anything to worry about then.

edit on 13-9-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Not only that, but what NDT missed with his comment is that hurricane forecasts are often made by meteorologists, not climate scientists. When it comes to climate change, there are not nearly as many meteorologists on board the hype train as there are climate scientists, so when you cite a meteorologist who does not believe in climate change (man made), they are denigrated for not being scientists.

Here NDT confuses the issue by claiming the work of meteorologists where it suits him.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

How about the fact that we have destroyed much of the planet's natural resources over the years and you think this will not effect the planet?


I can say with 100% certainty that it will not 'effect' the planet.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

fallacy of large numbers


Like where you guys throw out how many billion tons of x, y or z we put into the atmosphere with absolutely zero context about how miniscule that is compared to the overall size of the atmosphere and how much is contributed by natural sources? That fallacy?

It's analogous to taking a piss in a 50 million gallon resevoir. Nobody would be worried about that. Or would they?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join