4 minutes ago, Chazar said:

From his  equally  large  mansion, well  one of them anyway

Which has no bearing on the issue but does on his personal hypocrisy. It seems that is a big part of the denialist game. We don't need to consider the overwhelming evidence that man made climate crisis is real if we can personally attack some of the messengers in an ad hominem way. That is seriously messed up!

2 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Nowhere but Hollywood will you a more privileged, insulated and self important group of people. Pathetic, really.

How does that have any relevance to the actually happening climate crisis?

Just now, Jingthing said:

Which has no bearing on the issue but does on his personal hypocrisy. It seems that is a big part of the denialist game. We don't need to consider the overwhelming evidence that man made climate crisis is real if we can personally attack some of the messengers in an ad hominem way. That is seriously messed up!

No ad hominem attacks on Trump by the climate change cultists? when I saw how Greta stared at Trump my opinion (uncritically) was that she needs to fix something in herself.

  

3 minutes ago, mokwit said:

No ad hominem attacks on Trump by the climate change cultists? when I saw how Greta stared at Trump my opinion (uncritically) was that she needs to fix something in herself.

You seem confused about the definition of ad hominem. 45 is truly a very major VILLIAN on this issue. He's an aggressive denialist. He walked away from the Paris accord. She is hostile to him not because he likes cheeseburgers but because he is indeed enemy number one in the entire world on the issue that she is appropriately very focused on.

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by Jingthing

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

How does that have any relevance to the actually happening climate crisis?

There is no climate crisis. Wake up.  It’s become a politicized & bastardized version of science.  And remember this: the science is never settled.  

2 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

There is no climate crisis. Wake up.  It’s become a politicized & bastardized version of science.  And remember this: the science is never settled.  

Talk about denialism. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

  

You seem confused about the definition of ad hominem. 45 is truly a very major VILLIAN on this issue. He's an aggressive denialist. He walked away from the Paris accord. She is hostile to him not because he likes cheeseburgers but because he is indeed enemy number one in the entire world on the issue that she is appropriately very focused on.

You should really have started that with "in my opinion - it is your opinion not fact.

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

You should really have started that with "in my opinion - it is your opinion not fact.

Again, the so called "two sides" are not even close to equivalent in SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. 

 

Flat earthers have a "side" as well. It's BUNK. 

4 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

More liberal nonsense, it's about time they started to live in the real world

Did you notice they had to take down the taxpayer funded signs at Glacier National Park saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020? 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

 

Ooops.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Again, the so called "two sides" are not even close to equivalent in SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. 

 

Flat earthers have a "side" as well. It's BUNK. 

As part of a BSc I was required to critique the methodology of scientific papers. I also have twice gone deep into original scientific papers. Science is not that certain to anyone other than a layman who does not understand scientific methodology and how tentative conclusions are in real scientific research.  Greta is 16 at that age she almost certainly does not have the level of intellectual development to critique scientific papers but she is saying it is "settled " because someone else said so.

 

If I look at any science the first thing I want to know is who funded it and whose mortgage payments depend on it etc

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by mokwit

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Talk about denialism. 

Thank you for proving my point.  The creation of the category known as “climate denialists” was born out of politicized & bastardized science.  It exists nowhere in the true scientific community.  Have a nice life.  Bye, and bundle up.

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Did you notice they had to take down the taxpayer funded signs at Glacier National Park saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020? 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

 

Ooops.

They had to do the same thing when the Glaciers retreated from Southern England about 10,000 years ago. It then became warm enough for the Romans to grow grapes, then cold enough again that there were ice fairs on the river Thames.

Since we now seem to be debating whether labeling people as DENIALISTS on these issues is legitimate or not (I think it is) here's an interesting article that breaks down the major positions even further.

 

I'm probably between 3 and 4. I'm not sure if it's too late to avert catastrophe now for the younger humans but think that it might be.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201909/what-should-we-believe-about-climate-catastrophe

 

Quote

 

What Should We Believe About Climate Catastrophe?

Avoidable or inevitable? Should we prevent or adapt?

 

 

15 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Thank you for proving my point.  The creation of the category known as “climate denialists” was born out of politicized & bastardized science.  It exists nowhere in the true scientific community.  Have a nice life.  Bye, and bundle up.

Bye? Are you taking a trip?

4 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day. Do you think they give a fig about the climate?! They are just trying to survive 

The earth is about 5 billion years old, it will be here a long time after humans have become extinct

The conceited self righteous attitude of these bourgeoisie lefties makes me sick, talking about saving the planet, it doesn't need saving!

 

Whenever these bourgeoisie lefties support a cause I find myself going in the opposite direction.

 

We had the same in the UK with the likes of Hugh Grant, Benedict Cumberpatch and Lily Allen wanting more gimmegrants brought over to the UK from Calais in France. You won't hear a peep out of them when it's suggested that they take some in to live alongside them in their mansion houses.

 

Just like Harry and Megan and the other 'celebrity' climate change warriors you can bet Jane and Joaquin will still be clocking up the air miles.

Im real easy these days with the "climate change" stuff. I get to ignore all the scientific hoohaw and just reach down inside and say Im not turning control of my economic life over to some unelected beauracrat over something that will happen on a time scale waay beyond my lifespan anyway.

 

You want me to be a slave for 6 months to build shelters for protection from Asteroids, show me the picture and the course, and send a rocket up there in a nuke too. We can all pitch in and all that, just like in Hollywood. But Im not going to lose 10 pounds RIGHT NOW to try to slow down continental drift thats gonna suck up the flooded Hebrides anyway.

 

Climate Change yammering is a buzz kill. I like warm weather.

In my back garden at home there is a layer of clay over chalk. The chalk is from when my back garden was far out at sea and the clay is from when it was nearer in and silt from river estuaries was deposited.

 

The southern most point of the ice sheet in the last ice age is now the site of a motorway flyover a few miles from my house. There are gravel deposits nearby from the glacial rivers that flowed.

 

To think, all this could have been averted if the dinosaurs had just implemented Socialism.

 

 

JT likes to throw the word DENIER around. I like to call myself a SCEPTIC or even a REALIST.

I call you ALARMIST and SHEEP.

There are some good sites around that will show you the data manipulation that has been done by NASA, NOA, and IPCC to exclude or alter data that goes against their preferred outcome.

Even OBAMA quoted that stupid 97% that was obviously fed to him by his Climate Advisor.

I keep asking for people to show me even one climate prediction that has come true but nobody ever responds.

5 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

JT likes to throw the word DENIER around. I like to call myself a SCEPTIC or even a REALIST.

I call you ALARMIST and SHEEP.

There are some good sites around that will show you the data manipulation that has been done by NASA, NOA, and IPCC to exclude or alter data that goes against their preferred outcome.

Even OBAMA quoted that stupid 97% that was obviously fed to him by his Climate Advisor.

I keep asking for people to show me even one climate prediction that has come true but nobody ever responds.

If the shoe fits.

Just now, Jingthing said:

If the shoe fits.

weak

Just now, DoctorG said:

weak

Still waiting for a rebuttal to my post about the uncertainty of scientific conclusions.

5 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

weak

Not nearly as weak as your defense of climate crisis denialism.

9 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Still waiting for a rebuttal to my post about the uncertainty of scientific conclusions.

I don't reply to all baiting posts so don't even bother. 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't reply to all baiting posts so don't even bother. 

Don't pretend it was a baiting post to get out of it. It was a statement from someone who has formally studied science that scientific conclusions are not as "settled"as laymen think. I have noticed how you disengage and deflect on these boards when you views are questioned. The Liberal trick of saying a response is beneath them is seen as a deflection from the inability to respond FYI.

 

I mean COME ON you are posting that there is no alternative viewpoint to the one you are espousing but start weaseling when you are called to account/to support your assertions.

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by mokwit

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Don't pretend it was a baiting post to get out of it. It was a statement from someone who has formally studied science that scientific conclusions are not as "settled"as laymen think. I have noticed how you disengage and deflect on these boards when you views are questioned.

You can still find "scientists" that deny that the HIV virus causes HIV disease.

We go with the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS unless you are curiously invested in bending over backwards for whatever personal or political reasons to CLING to the outliers.

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

As part of a BSc I was required to critique the methodology of scientific papers. I also have twice gone deep into original scientific papers. Science is not that certain to anyone other than a layman who does not understand scientific methodology and how tentative conclusions are in real scientific research.  Greta is 16 at that age she almost certainly does not have the level of intellectual development to critique scientific papers but she is saying it is "settled " because someone else said so.

 

If I look at any science the first thing I want to know is who funded it and whose mortgage payments depend on it etc

Which part of that is "baiting"?

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You can still find "scientists" that deny that the HIV virus causes HIV disease.

We go with the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS unless you are curiously invested in bending over backwards for whatever personal or political reasons to CLING to the outliers.

So the consensus is never wrong? What about falsely contrived consensus as is the case with the flawed to the point of questionable integrity of the 97% climate change consensus. I posted elsewhere on this board a critique of that methodology by.a Scientist. He found the authors basically selected those papers that would support a desired conclusion.

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by mokwit

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

So the consensus is never wrong?

I didn't say that but if you're looking for 100 percent certainty on anything, forget about it. Which clearly is your agenda. I think that's horribly reckless and denialist but you're welcome to that position. 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I didn't say that but if you're looking for 100 percent certainty on anything, forget about it. Which clearly is your agenda. I think that's horribly reckless and denialist but you're welcome to that position. 

I would have thought it should be abundantly clear that I was actually making the point that things are not 100% clear in the face of your suggestions that the science behind theories of HIV, smoking and climate change is 100%. There is no point in continuing with you, you have the inability to have a rational argument.

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by mokwit

Fonda and Phoenix ? Just the thought of it makes me feel ill. Pass the vomit bucket..