Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

[bshole]

In the end, the only predictions that really mean anything are the ones that predict the impact on life on earth. IF the earth warms and life flourishes, who really cares that it warmed? And there is where the "science" is at it absolute weakest. There is a push to crater the economies of western civilizations while allowing rising asian nations to fill the gap.

From NASA's own website, all I could find about the future "horrors" of climate change were this:

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." 1

Well thanks for that. Great detail you have there NASA. Exactly what scientific method did you use to come up with that? What is the level of confidence and how was it computed? "Likely to be significant"? WTF? What is your definition of "likely" and what is your definition of "significant"? I can say the following with 100% certainty. The costs of switching over to renewable fuels will be catastrophic. From the greens own website, they estimate it would cost 30X as much to produce renewable energy as opposed to non-renewable (from the current 1 trillion dollars to 30 trillion). For fucks sake, have you no idea what that would do to human suffering on earth? Now compare that very real threat to the economy as opposed to the nebulous threat years in the future when all of us are moldering in our graves.

I know here in Wisconsin, crop yields have gone up year after year across ALL crop types for the last century. The forests are flourishing and are more plentiful and diverse than they were 100 years ago. Not a single negative consequence that a person actually living here could detect over the last 40 years.

http://inhabitat.com/infographic-ho...-entire-planet-to-switch-to-renewable-energy/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I support a gradual transition to renewables as the cost of extracting non-renewables becomes cost prohibitive. That is the way it is going to happen and that is the only fair way to do it. It will be driven by economics not hysteria.

 

[MongGrel]

Ah. Not a fan.. as a conservative I find it insulting.

The term he is looking for is "Republican" or "democrat", not "conservative" or CBD.

Your new around these parts.

Moonbeam is very deep on several levels I'd say personally.

 

[sandorski]

In the end, the only predictions that really mean anything are the ones that predict the impact on life on earth. IF the earth warms and life flourishes, who really cares that it warmed? And there is where the "science" is at it absolute weakest. There is a push to crater the economies of western civilizations while allowing rising asian nations to fill the gap.

From NASA's own website, all I could find about the future "horrors" of climate change were this:



Well thanks for that. Great detail you have there NASA. Exactly what scientific method did you use to come up with that? What is the level of confidence and how was it computed? "Likely to be significant"? WTF? What is your definition of "likely" and what is your definition of "significant"? I can say the following with 100% certainty. The costs of switching over to renewable fuels will be catastrophic. From the greens own website, they estimate it would cost 30X as much to produce renewable energy as opposed to non-renewable (from the current 1 trillion dollars to 30 trillion). For fucks sake, have you no idea what that would do to human suffering on earth? Now compare that very real threat to the economy as opposed to the nebulous threat years in the future when all of us are moldering in our graves.

I know here in Wisconsin, crop yields have gone up year after year across ALL crop types for the last century. The forests are flourishing and are more plentiful and diverse than they were 100 years ago. Not a single negative consequence that a person actually living here could detect over the last 40 years.

http://inhabitat.com/infographic-ho...-entire-planet-to-switch-to-renewable-energy/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

There is no push to crater economies. That's just pure bullshit obfuscating scare tactics. The Climate is changing rapidly due to Our dumping of massive quantities of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere. Yes it will be costly to stop doing that, but if we don't do it the result of adapting alone is going to be far more costly.

Crop yields have increased due to Agricultural Technologies, not CO2.

 

[mindmajick]

In the end, the only predictions that really mean anything are the ones that predict the impact on life on earth. IF the earth warms and life flourishes, who really cares that it warmed? And there is where the "science" is at it absolute weakest. There is a push to crater the economies of western civilizations while allowing rising asian nations to fill the gap.

From NASA's own website, all I could find about the future "horrors" of climate change were this:



Well thanks for that. Great detail you have there NASA. Exactly what scientific method did you use to come up with that? What is the level of confidence and how was it computed? "Likely to be significant"? WTF? What is your definition of "likely" and what is your definition of "significant"? I can say the following with 100% certainty. The costs of switching over to renewable fuels will be catastrophic. From the greens own website, they estimate it would cost 30X as much to produce renewable energy as opposed to non-renewable (from the current 1 trillion dollars to 30 trillion). For fucks sake, have you no idea what that would do to human suffering on earth? Now compare that very real threat to the economy as opposed to the nebulous threat years in the future when all of us are moldering in our graves.

I know here in Wisconsin, crop yields have gone up year after year across ALL crop types for the last century. The forests are flourishing and are more plentiful and diverse than they were 100 years ago. Not a single negative consequence that a person actually living here could detect over the last 40 years.

http://inhabitat.com/infographic-ho...-entire-planet-to-switch-to-renewable-energy/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I support a gradual transition to renewables as the cost of extracting non-renewables becomes cost prohibitive. That is the way it is going to happen and that is the only fair way to do it. It will be driven by economics not hysteria.

This is why we need a big solar flare to knock out all of the technology... That way we can go back and do what's right for all mankind instead of the primary focus being what is "economically feasible".

I will not encourage a throw away society.

 

[bshole]

There is no push to crater economies. That's just pure bullshit obfuscating scare tactics. .

Well it worked on me. I am scared of the economic consequences of forcing renewables before they are feasible. You are scared that global warming may affect people after your death. We simply have different fears. If your fears come true, you will never know. If mine come true, we will ALL know.

I was witness to the catastrophe of forcing ethanol on America (to fight global warming). A lot of people got really really rich (by bribing our gullible politicians). That was a tiny tiny thing compared to the crap on the table now. Below is just a small analysis of the harmful impacts of ethanol. It doesn't address a list of other harmful impacts worldwide but they are easily available by google search. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES are NOT your friend.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/how-big-ethanol-hopes-youre-a-dope-2/

 

[Moonbeam]

CBD = Conservative Brain Defect.

Moonie has interpreted a study that only stated the difference between conservative and liberal brains as being a brain defect.

In particular that the conservative focus on group loyalty leads to altered reality group think as conservatives rush to be more conservative than the next guy and demonize anybody who does not belong to the team, a phenomenon by which, in their efforts to support each other, they become willing to destroy their fellow countrymen, all the while refusing to see it. If you are a threat to the human race as CBDs have been scientifically demonstrated to be, you are going to be defined by me as defective. Traitors and psychopaths would probably work as well.

 

[soulcougher73]

WTF? CBD? Christian Book dealers? Cannabidiol ? Corticobasal degeneration?
You sir are the definition of an internet troll. Please return to masturbating with peanut butter in your mothers basement while watching kiddy porn.

It's funny when they haven't accepted their CBD yet. It's the first step in recovery.

 

[bshole]

Well it worked on me. I am scared of the economic consequences of forcing renewables before they are feasible. You are scared that global warming may affect people after your death. We simply have different fears. If your fears come true, you will never know. If mine come true, we will ALL know.

I was witness to the catastrophe of forcing ethanol on America (to fight global warming). A lot of people got really really rich (by bribing our gullible politicians). That was a tiny tiny thing compared to the crap on the table now. Below is just a small analysis of the harmful impacts of ethanol. It doesn't address a list of other harmful impacts worldwide but they are easily available by google search. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES are NOT your friend.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/how-big-ethanol-hopes-youre-a-dope-2/

It should be noted that not a SINGLE climate scientist predicted the bad effects of ethanol, not a single fucking one. The climate scientists were all on board when that shit was shoved down our throats. That is really amazing when you consider that simple chemistry would have predicted the end result.

 

[mindmajick]

In particular that the conservative focus on group loyalty leads to altered reality group think as conservatives rush to be more conservative than the next guy and demonize anybody who does not belong to the team, a phenomenon by which, in their efforts to support each other, they become willing to destroy their fellow countrymen, all the while refusing to see it. If you are a threat to the human race as CBDs have been scientifically demonstrated to be, you are going to be defined by me as defective. Traitors and psychopaths would probably work as well.

Aaahhh... So that's what happened to the Republican Party.

Wondered when they just went batshit crazy.

It's a real shame though. It really makes the sane conservatives look bad.

I do find, however, that many democrats also have issues with distinguishing the difference between a good idea and group loyalty. I'm really not a fan of Democrat or Republican group think. We should all think for ourselves... And find information from as many different CONTRADICTORY sources as possible.

 

[mindmajick]

It should be noted that not a SINGLE climate scientist predicted the bad effects of ethanol, not a single fucking one. The climate scientists were all on board when that shit was shoved down our throats. That is really amazing when you consider that simple chemistry would have predicted the end result.

Human created climate change. Yup.

Also. Read the quoted scientific american article. Different conclusions were made than stated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol/

But estimates of the nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons released by ethanol combustion vary, according to Tim Gerlach, vice president of clean fuels and vehicle technologies at the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest in St. Paul, Minn. "We ran a couple of vehicles in multiple dynometer runs and measured tailpipe emissions," he says. "[E85] compared very favorably to a low-sulfur, low-benzene, oxygenated gasoline." Specifically, burning E85 resulted in fewer ozone-forming compounds than gasoline. And E85's benefits as far as combating global warming outweigh any impact in ozone pollution. "We need to have an orderly, sustained implementation of low-carbon fuels and a smooth transition to a low-carbon world," says Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "E85 is a part of the solution to global warming."

-----

And this is interesting too:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research
And more http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Energy_Research

It should be noted that not a SINGLE climate scientist predicted the bad effects of ethanol, not a single fucking one. The climate scientists were all on board when that shit was shoved down our throats. That is really amazing when you consider that simple chemistry would have predicted the end result.

I call bullshit. See everything above.

 

[Subyman]

Denier. Denier. Denier. Baby baby stick your head in gravy. Look how mature us scientific types.

"If you want to defeat climate deniers, the first thing you need to know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that global warming is, in fact, happening."

Yes the earth has gone through warming periods and cooling periods, as Vostok clearly demonstrates. I have yet to see a single ounce of proof it's anthropomorphic warming. Having people responsible for the planet doesn't mean fraudulent science or scare tactics become necessary.

But enjoy the bubble, hope you guys are smart enough to be on the ground floor. I'm even all for the government continually getting into foolish ventures like subsidizing my solar panels. It's better than eating soy and corn.

Note that in your own graphic, carbon has never naturally been above 300ppm. We are now at 400ppm and are projected to continually increase. How does this unnatural carbon level affect the natural warming and cooling cycle of the Earth? That is what scientists have been studying, among many other things.

 

[CZroe]

In particular that the conservative focus on group loyalty leads to altered reality group think as conservatives rush to be more conservative than the next guy and demonize anybody who does not belong to the team, a phenomenon by which, in their efforts to support each other, they become willing to destroy their fellow countrymen, all the while refusing to see it. If you are a threat to the human race as CBDs have been scientifically demonstrated to be, you are going to be defined by me as defective. Traitors and psychopaths would probably work as well.

"I am not a scientist but ... CONSENSUS!"
"Consensus! ... Consensus! ... Consensus!"
"Shame all who dare to defy consensus!"

What do you call this?

It works both ways:
Infectious thought germs.

 

[Paratus]

I don't deny the climate is changing, nor do I deny man is having some effect on the climate. However, what I do *DEBATE* is the attribution.

We cannot even forecast weather 24hours in a local area with a large degree of certainty. Yet we are supposed believe we can create a perfect attribution for man made global warming?

Dumbass financial analysts can't even predict what price Apple stock will be in an hour and I'm supposed to believe it's safe to put my money in an S&P fund for 30 years?!

I'm investing in gold.

^This is what you sound like to me.

 

[MongGrel]

NM, should be asleep by now.

 

[Grooveriding]

At this point the best way to address those denying climate change is happening as a result of human behaviour is simply not engaging them. It's come to that point and it's that embarrassing to hear it. Treat it as if someone said to you the Earth is flat, give them the same look you would in that case and do one of these

Those in denial largely are accounted for by:

-those with a financial interest in nothing being done about the crisis
-the insane
-those who let their politics blind them to factual reality, their preferred political faction tells them it's not so, so it's not so

The best approach at this point is ridicule. Denying it is like claiming the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, etc. etc.

 

[MagickMan]

Climate change is obviously caused by a lack of pirates.

 

[MagickMan]

There is no push to crater economies. That's just pure bullshit obfuscating scare tactics. The Climate is changing rapidly due to Our dumping of massive quantities of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere. Yes it will be costly to stop doing that, but if we don't do it the result of adapting alone is going to be far more costly.

Crop yields have increased due to Agricultural Technologies, not CO2.

Then until they get that under control in China, India, Malaysia, and the rest of the 2nd and 3rd world, it doesn't matter. We (the USA and EU) aren't the primary offenders in GHG production, and haven't been for some time now.

 

[sandorski]

Then until they get that under control in China, India, Malaysia, and the rest of the 2nd and 3rd world, it doesn't matter. We (the USA and EU) aren't the primary offenders in GHG production, and haven't been for some time now.

Everyone needs to address it, including us. You're just making another excuse to do nothing.

 

[CZroe]

At this point the best way to address those denying climate change is happening as a result of human behaviour is simply not engaging them. It's come to that point and it's that embarrassing to hear it. Treat it as if someone said to you the Earth is flat, give them the same look you would in that case and do one of these

Those in denial largely are accounted for by:

-those with a financial interest in nothing being done about the crisis
-the insane
-those who let their politics blind them to factual reality, their preferred political faction tells them it's not so, so it's not so

The best approach at this point is ridicule. Denying it is like claiming the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, etc. etc.

Great. All along, contrived shame has been the primary tool for those pretending to be more intelligent by siding with "smarter than me or you" majority opinion. You should be ashamed to stoop to it.

Your argument is not strong enough? Don't re-evaluate. Don't learn more to support your side of the issue. Bully and shame! That's how PETA works.

"I am not a scientist but ... CONSENSUS!"
"Consensus! ... Consensus! ... Consensus!"
"Shame all who dare to defy consensus!"

 

[CZroe]

Climate change is obviously caused by a lack of pirates.

In that case, I'm doing my part.

Yo ho ho... HOOOOO!

 

[mindmajick]

"I am not a scientist but ... CONSENSUS!"
"Consensus! ... Consensus! ... Consensus!"
"Shame anyone who dare to defy consensus!"

What do you call this?

It works both ways:
Infectious thought germs.

Why consensus?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...en-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In particular that the conservative focus on group loyalty leads to altered reality group think as conservatives rush to be more conservative than the next guy and demonize anybody who does not belong to the team, a phenomenon by which, in their efforts to support each other, they become willing to destroy their fellow countrymen, all the while refusing to see it. If you are a threat to the human race as CBDs have been scientifically demonstrated to be, you are going to be defined by me as defective. Traitors and psychopaths would probably work as well.

You may want to look at liberals/Democrats more closely as they also fall for the group think mentality. This forum is a good example for seeing those from either side demonizing anyone that's not on "Their Team". As a moderate I see anyone that to the far right or left as a threat to the US of A.

I see people like you as a hindrance to people working together due to your wide brush labeling of all conservatives as being defective. Guess "Your Team" is the only correct choice eh?

 

[Subyman]

"I am not a scientist but ... CONSENSUS!"
"Consensus! ... Consensus! ... Consensus!"
"Shame all who dare to defy consensus!"

What do you call this?

It works both ways:
Infectious thought germs.

This isn't the witch trials or a turn-of-phrase being popularized. You say consensus like its a bad thing. Trying to demonize many people coming to the same conclusion is the opposite of rational thought. We aren't talking about consensus with the majority of the general population, we are talking about consensus among those that are educated on the issue. So your points are all hyperbole.

No one can fault you or any other for still being on the fence about it, still trying to understand and educate yourself.

 

[Subyman]

Great. All along, contrived shame has been the primary tool for those pretending to be more intelligent by siding with "smarter than me or you" majority opinion. You should be ashamed to stoop to it.

This makes you sound insecure.

 

[sandorski]

It should be noted that not a SINGLE climate scientist predicted the bad effects of ethanol, not a single fucking one. The climate scientists were all on board when that shit was shoved down our throats. That is really amazing when you consider that simple chemistry would have predicted the end result.

So what? They are experts on Climate, not Ethanol.