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: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So is attempting to debate a true believer!

So are you talking about climate change or are you talking about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming??

There is a very big huge difference you know




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I'm confused on what the storm has to do with climate change. It wasn't that powerful of a storm.




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

There's different ways to interpret known facts. That's where the debate comes in. It's a fact that the climate is changing. It's also a fact that we don't know how big a contributor man is to that change. The debate comes whether you think it's worth the cost to change our energy infrastructure and economy to combat something we're not even sure we're driving. Some just want to believe that man's contribution is enough to justify those costs, even though there's no data to support that yet, and some of us believe we should study it more before making a decision.

Then there are those who can't debate this at all and have to pretend that the other side is claiming the climate doesn't change. Nobody except a couple of far out loons are saying that, but that's a lot easier for them to argue against so they just stick to that.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think people who gets emotional about this is sucked into the political side of this debate more so than the scientific side. Yes there are many scientists who are sucked into this too after all they too are "human". Lay person like us trying to prove or disprove something like this topic is just a competition of google-fu vs. duckduckgo-fu. It's senseless. There are scientists who disagree with mainstream, let them debate free and fair, data points per data points. That is what science is about, not who gets the most funding. Mainstream science is a 'Religion', the problem is they have been wrong before.

But I'll bite! Lets say man was part contributor to this problem. What is your solution? And why do you think it will work?
edit on 13-9-2017 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Separating from the climate change context: the entire concept of punishing someone for rejecting scientific consensus is absurdity of the highest degree. What happens down the line when science progresses and new theories displace old ones? Do we release the prisoners at that point? Do we compensate them for false imprisonment? Do we ruthlessly prosecute those who take just a bit too long to move from the old orthodoxy to the new?

EVERY generation in history has believed themselves to possess the highest possible level of knowledge about the world. EVERY generation has been wrong: so will ours.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: cheesyleps

To the gallows with you!

Seriously though, the fact you even have to say what you just did, in 2017, is scary.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Yes science is such a debate that they are recommending criminalizing a contrary opinion.

No. A small minority of exacerbated people are recommending jailing people who are contributing to fake science research. Claiming that you are at risk for being jailed for not believing is disingenuous.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I was going to write a huge response to this load of tripe, but then I remembered that responding to a Gish Gallop from a science denier is a waste of time.


Wait, didn't you just type science is about debate?

Then when someone puts up facts, you refuse to show how those are incorrect, and instead go for name calling?

Are you trying to say that science should be about debate, but only with people whose conclusions you already agree with?

Lol. "Facts". That was a good joke. Half of that list of bull# were opinions. Clearly you didn't read it. Also, in case you finally feel up to reading, read this: Gish Gallop



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Science is the new Religion. Burn at the stakes you non believers.



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

Who draws the line and decides what is fake and what is real? What about the various times when the AGW movement has been caught red-handed doctoring data? Who decides what is valid statistical adjustment and what is politically motivated fudging of numbers?

What about the recent surveys that show a huge percentage of all scientists admitting to actions such as doctoring data or cherrypicking data to suit their conclusions or adjusting their methodologies to guarantee an outcome in line with their funding (or other manifestations of a lack of scientific neutrality)?

Do we need to call the science police?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just linked an article with 20 sources that say the sun may have an affect on climate change. It's great that there are two sides to this climate debate. I do not feel emotional either way who wins this debate, but it seems you are very emotionally involved, since it is reflected in your "holier-than-thou" attitude. I say take a deep breath and meditate on it. You will do yourself some good.

And I just said that if the sun is effecting the climate it is in addition to man made changes.


There's no if about it, it does. In fact IPCC admitted the sun may be responsible for as much as half the observed warming.

Edit to add link.

NASA and the IPCC must be deniers.

Do you really just refuse to understand the written words in front of your face? I'm not denying the sun's involvement. Not in a single post have I denied it. I AM denying that it is the only cause of climate change though. I also know that NASA isn't make that claim as well.
edit on 13-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

The sad part is I'm a big proponent of science. I love physics, astronomy, weather. In fact my interest in astronomy is how I know the sun is playing a big part in the warming. Any paper or article you read that is strictly astronomy and isn't attached to the global warming debate acknowledges this, but in global warming circles they just pretend the sun is irrelevant. Or they acknowledge past changes but suggest it will have negligible impact on future warming. Of course they don't back this assertion up with anything, it's just something they need to say because AGW is the agenda and the sun is inconvenient.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who's with the straw men now? Where did I say it's the only cause?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think people who gets emotional about this is sucked into the political side of this debate more so than the scientific side. Yes there are many scientists who are sucked into this too after all they too are "human". Lay person like us trying to prove or disprove something like this topic is just a competition of google-fu vs. duckduckgo-fu. It's senseless. There are scientists who disagree with mainstream, let them debate free and fair, data points per data points. That is what science is about, not who gets the most funding. Mainstream science is a 'Religion', the problem is they have been wrong before.

This is one right wing denier talking point after another. Make it look like science isn't fostering discussion with specious arguments fueled by little evidence all to promote a minority opinion in the scientific community as something other than minority.

It's not like we give the same treatment to the minority of scientists who believe the earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist or any other fringe theory out there. Yet because monied interests in the oil field don't want to lose their money suddenly THIS fringe topic needs equal consideration. I'm not buying that #.


But I'll bite! Lets say man was part contributor to this problem. What is your solution? And why do you think it will work?

Depends on which particular part of the problem you want to suggest. I'm not a fan of big over-arching solutions. I like nuance. So you are going to need to get a bit more descriptive with me here, but don't expect an immediate answer either. Such a thing requires deep thought and pondering before I will commit to a solution.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yeah, now where have we heard THAT before????

No we are just going after the "useless" eaters
No, we are just going after devient homo sexuals and loose woman
No, we are just going after criminals
No we are just going after jews
No we are just going after union members

So I was wondering, what kind of connections do you have that you can make assurances about who "they" want to jail?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheesyleps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who draws the line and decides what is fake and what is real?

What about them? Science is self correcting and throws out fraudulent research all the time. Though making the argument that fraudulent research exists therefor the theory isn't sound is a logical fallacy. What about the fact that it has been proven the oil companies fund climate denial research in the same manner that cigarette companies funded cigarette risk denial research?

What about the various times when the AGW movement has been caught red-handed doctoring data?

What about them? Care to list them? Before you continue though, Climategate and Climategate 2.0 were manufactured scandals.

Who decides what is valid statistical adjustment and what is politically motivated fudging of numbers?

Statisticians for one.


What about the recent surveys that show a huge percentage of all scientists admitting to actions such as doctoring data or cherrypicking data to suit their conclusions or adjusting their methodologies to guarantee an outcome in line with their funding (or other manifestations of a lack of scientific neutrality)?

Proof?


Do we need to call the science police?

No, but if a logical fallacy police existed, they'd need to be called. You planning on proving any of these ridiculous notions and connecting them with how they disprove gathered evidence?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who's with the straw men now? Where did I say it's the only cause?

Well you keep harping on it for some reason. So I figured there had to be SOME reason why you felt like I had to keep talking about the sun affecting climate change even though I never denied it happens.
edit on 13-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In other words you ignored the words that were right in front of you.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So I was wondering, what kind of connections do you have that you can make assurances about who "they" want to jail?

Well seeing as they are mostly scientists I'd say even those funders are safe since scientists aren't the politicians making laws and all, but hey I'll let you continue to pretend like government works by the diction of a few rogue scientists and not politicians. Wouldn't let logic to get in the way of your arguing or anything.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Are you planning on discussing anything related to climate change or do you want to have a playground argument? I'd like to know now so I know if I should keep responding or not.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join