Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
In response to the title alone: We knew before 2015 bc we had to live through 2014 to get to 2015... Duh... And we had a record of all years prior bc we'd already lived through them... Silly title is silly...
Why 2014 Wasn't the Hottest Year on Record, and How we Knew Before 2015
- Thread starter ThatCanadianGuy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
crg123
SS.orgLocalArchitect
You know how easy it is to backtrack any one of the websites who push climate change denial back to where the money comes from?
For instance that link you posted in the O.P.
Whats the site: CFACT: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Who funds the committee? Donors Trust, Koch as well as many other conservative private citizens aka "the people who suffer financially from climate change legislation"
What do we lose by trying to solve the problem in the patterns we're seeing? Lowering emissions and trying to find alternative energy sources, costing the current energy source provider money (greed and money only on short term gains)
What do we lose by failing to do anything Accelerated extinction of animals who can not adapt quick enough, weather patterns that becomes increasingly violent, rising water levels, etc.
Why would all these scientists waste decades of their life, collecting all this data for no reason? Seems like the people who are interested in funding this anti climate change studies are the one's who will benefit from its delay to be put into legislation. Think about that. We're not going to be able to have a constructive discussion if you refuse to have a spark of doubt in the sources you gain your information from. Follow the money.
For instance that link you posted in the O.P.
Whats the site: CFACT: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Who funds the committee? Donors Trust, Koch as well as many other conservative private citizens aka "the people who suffer financially from climate change legislation"
What do we lose by trying to solve the problem in the patterns we're seeing? Lowering emissions and trying to find alternative energy sources, costing the current energy source provider money (greed and money only on short term gains)
What do we lose by failing to do anything Accelerated extinction of animals who can not adapt quick enough, weather patterns that becomes increasingly violent, rising water levels, etc.
Why would all these scientists waste decades of their life, collecting all this data for no reason? Seems like the people who are interested in funding this anti climate change studies are the one's who will benefit from its delay to be put into legislation. Think about that. We're not going to be able to have a constructive discussion if you refuse to have a spark of doubt in the sources you gain your information from. Follow the money.
celticelk
Well-Known Member
Just because I'm picky: you'd have had to live through 2015 BCE to get to 2014. The numbers increase in both directions from the arbitrary year 0.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Ok
ThatCanadianGuy said:
Listen, I don't know you very well (despite you being a member here for 3 years and I don't know if you've just decided to 'open up' on P&CE because Alex turned off neg rep) but the ad hominem attacks on groups of forum members, and posting/bumping topics with deliberately divisive talking points will not be tolerated.
Before, I let people get away with acting like assholes on this board just because the members had rep as retribution. That no longer being the the case, if I detect anybody on here's a troll, I'm issuing a hefty (to be determined) ban.
You're all on notice.
asher
So Did We
I bet my blood pressure would be down if that had started happening earlier 
So, do we think he'll respond?
So, do we think he'll respond?
flint757
Well-Known Member
I can understand skepticism, but I always find it amusing when somehow every scientist is a conspirator while those funded with obvious vested interests in seeing our current energy structure stay the same are directly funding the denial research. At the very least I'd expect an equal amount of skepticism towards both sources. Of course that doesn't work for most peoples since the majority of denial supporters are simply agreeing with the ideology they already thought was true before they even looked into the research.
It's all so similar to when people bite really hard into major conspiracy theories. The news, the government, construction workers, people on site, executives, whatever are all in on a global scam yet a blog(s) with either no sources or one or two unverifiable sources (or someone ranting on their death bed) got it right. If someone feels a hefty amount of skepticism towards the supported data they should really hold the same level of skepticism from the other party too (yet somehow it never is). Hell, maybe even more so. The first con could actually be a double cross to get people to bite on the wrong stories just to distract everyone from the real problems.
It's all so similar to when people bite really hard into major conspiracy theories. The news, the government, construction workers, people on site, executives, whatever are all in on a global scam yet a blog(s) with either no sources or one or two unverifiable sources (or someone ranting on their death bed) got it right. If someone feels a hefty amount of skepticism towards the supported data they should really hold the same level of skepticism from the other party too (yet somehow it never is). Hell, maybe even more so. The first con could actually be a double cross to get people to bite on the wrong stories just to distract everyone from the real problems.
Explorer
He seldomly knows...
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,619
- Reaction score
- 1,162
If he responds, it will be either to continue to assert that there is no scientific consensus, or to finally give what would convince him that his conclusion about a lack of scientific consensus is wrong.
He can't talk about how a consensus isn't good evidence without arguing against his own reasoning from a previous conversation.
He's already shown that he recognizes how consensus is indicative of a solid answer. That's why he has to fall back on saying there is no consensus in the first place.
As to whether or not that rises to Randy's definition of trolling, and will bring down the ban hammer, is a separate question.
If Guy/Dicky/Devric came to his conclusion based on evidence, and can show that evidence would change his mind, I'm sure that would *not* be trolling.
Since (according to his user page) Guy/Dicky/Devric has been checking out different topics here on SS.org for a while since his last post, and because I'm confident he won't just forget this topic exists, I am confident that we can draw the tentative conclusion that if he does abandon the topic, he will have done so deliberately.
ferret
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 403
Flint, that reminds me of something I was talking to a work buddy about today about conspiracy theory believers. If you really thought, for example, that Obama was imprisoning Republican dissidents as part of his planned dictatorial take over.... I mean, really truly believe it to be happening...
.... would you be posting about it on Facebook about how much you hate him and his policies and plan to resist his take over?
If I believed such a thing, I'd keep it from myself so the CIA doesn't ship me to one of those black ops prisons.
.... would you be posting about it on Facebook about how much you hate him and his policies and plan to resist his take over?
If I believed such a thing, I'd keep it from myself so the CIA doesn't ship me to one of those black ops prisons.
flint757
Well-Known Member
Flint, that reminds me of something I was talking to a work buddy about today about conspiracy theory believers. If you really thought, for example, that Obama was imprisoning Republican dissidents as part of his planned dictatorial take over.... I mean, really truly believe it to be happening...
.... would you be posting about it on Facebook about how much you hate him and his policies and plan to resist his take over?
If I believed such a thing, I'd keep it from myself so the CIA doesn't ship me to one of those black ops prisons.
No doubt.
Is that really a currently running conspiracy?
Explorer
He seldomly knows...
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,619
- Reaction score
- 1,162
Dude, you haven't *lived* until you get in with right-wing friends, whether political, religious or a combination of both.
I'm looking forward to summer barbecue season for just this reason.
The best part is, if you ask questions and stick to easily verified, supported facts, the more reasonable folks are often grateful that someone pointed out where the crazies really went off the rails. That's a place where they often have given up, but they don't mind when the bag of cats is actually commented on.
I'm looking forward to summer barbecue season for just this reason.
The best part is, if you ask questions and stick to easily verified, supported facts, the more reasonable folks are often grateful that someone pointed out where the crazies really went off the rails. That's a place where they often have given up, but they don't mind when the bag of cats is actually commented on.
ferret
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,594
- Reaction score
- 403
According to my Facebook feed, which has a tendency to lean "Southern" due to my location, yes, very much so, "Obama is a dictator and taking our guns" and related theories are very much alive and well. I have family members that believe, at least on Facebook, that there will be no 2016 election.
flint757
Well-Known Member
I've heard some wacky theories and people comparing him to a dictator, but this is the first I've heard about people literally thinking that is the end game (and being completely serious in saying so).
To actually believe that is to pretend like the last 100 years never happened (historical context is a bitch).
To actually believe that is to pretend like the last 100 years never happened (historical context is a bitch).
GoldDragon
Well-Known Member
This is a liberal agenda at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population.
God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! Liberals would just love that.
GoldDragon
Well-Known Member
Do you carry your smartphone so you can Google things or do you just smirk and tell them to look it up?
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Promit
Well-Known Member
I have a rule of thumb. If someone is asked for "evidence" of something - anything - and the response is a YouTube link, then that person can be and likely should be completely ignored as they have no concept of what the word evidence means.
Explorer
He seldomly knows...
- Joined
- May 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,619
- Reaction score
- 1,162
I don't have a smartphone in the first place. I'm still using an old Nokia 5130. I don't need to be able to access the internet on the go, since I'm pretty good at looking at maps before I go out if I'm unsure.
Why... do *you* not remember relevant facts, and have to look them up in the middle of discussions?
You did provide an example of how insight can be brought to bear on an arguement though.
Right off the cuff, your underlying assertion ("Liberals are opposed to methods which can limit population growth") seems at odds with current attempts in the United States to prevent people from making reproductive choices, like access to abortion and birth control.
As far as I'm aware, all those efforts to prevent women from having access to such options are from the conservative side.
And a Google search wouldn't have given you the insight necessary to say, "What is this stupidity that I'm about to say? Do I really want to look like I don't understand the worlds coming out of my own mouth? Am I really saying that liberals are opposed to birth control? Is it worth going for a zinger if it has a chance of looking stupid?"
Insight. You can't just look it up.
----
ThatCanadianGuy hasn't come back. Did he really still not come up with something which could make him change his mind?
That's too bad. I was really rooting for him to have a rational, reasonable conclusion instead of dogmatic talking point. That kind of behavior is just sad.
crg123
SS.orgLocalArchitect
Hey! I was wondering when you'd show up!
Time to let all us Damn Libertards know what's good. Actually they dropped that rule, its an interesting read and I would assume Forbes isn't part of the New World Order misinformation machine (lol): http://www.forbes.com/sites/investo...a-is-finally-abandoning-its-one-child-policy/
#AxeFxIs4Sheep#Ronpaul2016#MainstreamMediasLying
Just teasing of course, its always interesting to hear people with different opinions but seriously can we have a discussion without the name calling?
GoldDragon
Well-Known Member
You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.
I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.
